|
As always, with topics as complex and sensitive as these, please take a minute to think before you post. If this thread is to stay open the following must be avoided:
- Disrespect to any of the parties involved (be it the bullies or bullied)
The above includes:
- Justifying or glorifying death or suicide as deserved
- Disregarding or belittling the circumstances that give rise to these situations
There's a reason why these discussions are always so sensitive. There are extremes on either side of the discussion that are disrespectful and narrow-minded in their own ways; the best approach is to carefully consider the other side before posting
Warnings and bans will be handed out for unreasoned and insensitive statements. |
On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:23 Endymion wrote:
i really don't get how people sympathize with the gunmen... he ended someones life, tried to kill 4 others, and people are saying "oh it was because he was bullied.." fuck this kid, you should feel bad for all of the people getting bullied who are nice enough to not shoot up a school.. oh well, it's easy to be anonymous on the internet
edit ~ violence shouldn't be met with more violence, it should be met with reason and order... we aren't barbarians. I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap. 1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear. 2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain. 3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:23 Endymion wrote:
i really don't get how people sympathize with the gunmen... he ended someones life, tried to kill 4 others, and people are saying "oh it was because he was bullied.." fuck this kid, you should feel bad for all of the people getting bullied who are nice enough to not shoot up a school.. oh well, it's easy to be anonymous on the internet
edit ~ violence shouldn't be met with more violence, it should be met with reason and order... we aren't barbarians. I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap. 1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear. 2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain. 3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality.
I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe.
PS - these nested quotes are getting a little out of control lol.
|
Bullying is obviously a bad thing, however nobody deserves to lose their lives because of it.
|
On February 28 2012 09:53 kellenr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality. I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe.
How is it moral to condemn one person to death when you are not objectively effected? Morality is each to his own, you choose your morality, it's not real and shouldn't be touted as "the supreme right" because everyones morality is slightly different depending on how they were raised...
Best example is Rambo, religious guy tells rambo he shouldnt have killed the guy, rambo flips his shit, end of the movie the religious guy takes a life (which he swore he'd never do)
^ morality shifted
So I don't see how you can say "letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing" when you have a total different definition to morals then I or anyone else.
|
On February 28 2012 09:53 kellenr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality. I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe.
Vengeance = / = morality
remember the old saying:
"An eye for an eye puts you in the middle of Saudi Arabia sharia law."
Or something like that.
|
It's terrible news, RIP to the one who passed away. Good luck to the ones still recovering. Okay, now for a serious question, why does the ATF need to send 8 men to figure out where the pistol originated? Seems like a 1 or at most 2 guy job. What exactly does an investigation into the origin of a handgun entail that calls for the labor of 8 people?
On February 28 2012 04:28 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 04:23 rhs408 wrote:
They say he was a quiet, nice kid. Also the group of students that he was shooting at apparently bullied him... if this is the case then my sympathy level for them goes down to almost zero. man, don't say that. i hate seeing bullies get away with it, and i hate that they do it, but c'mon... my sympathies go out to everyone involved, including the shooter. his life is over. stuff like this is so sad, it just makes you want to cry.
I think the only one whose life is over is the one who died since the shooter was just a minor. As a minor he can't get a life-ending prison sentence or the death penalty can he? Or do you think in this case they can lock him up until he is 18, and then retry him as an adult? Would appreciate if anyone who knows a bit more about criminal laws and minors and such could chime in on what this kid is likely facing
|
On February 28 2012 09:51 kellenr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. Well, honestly, i'm just glad I wouldn't have to lie to her. Sucks that you would. And I know peoples oppinions are going to be different than mine. It just baffles me that so many people are identifying with the murderer rather than the victims. I assumed (ignorantly, obviously) that pretty much everyone would condemn this, call this dude a horrible person, and express sympathy pretty much exclusively for the victims. But hey, what do I know? I'm just some idiot that feels sorry for a bunch of people that got shot.
Well, for once, all the information we have until now is that the shooter got bullied and the victim is the bully. It's the media coverage that makes the shooter appear more human and the victim less of a nice person.
And then I wouldn't say a lot of people here (me included) necessarily have more sympathy for the killer. We just admit that we feel some understanding of his actions that (and that's just my opinion) can justify it to some extent, i.e. mitigate his sentence. What he did was absolutely condemnable and I don't see a lot of people disagreeing.
On February 28 2012 09:53 kellenr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:31 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
I think we have a big misunderstanding in this thread. You can't deny the bolded statement if the media coverage isn't total crap.
1) The bullying was the cause of the shooting. That's kinda clear.
2) People feel sympathy for the shooter because he was bullied. Of course this causes more empathy because the shooter was a former victim. Even more so since many of us have gone through the same pain.
3) The related, yet to be separately answered question is that of the justification. And I don't even think there's a lot of disagreement there. Of course shooting someone for bullying you, no matter the duration and severity, is not justified. But given the backstory, it's easily explainable. People just need to stop confusing explanation and justification. You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower. I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality. I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe. PS - these nested quotes are getting a little out of control lol.
That's the cool thing about morals though. They're subjective.
I personally don't see any justification in killing a convict as part of a court's decision. Don't get me wrong, I still want Breivik dead, I just admit there's no rational justification for it. It's simply my anger at him for what he did.
<3 dem nested quotes btw. what a piece of art.
|
On February 28 2012 09:59 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:53 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me?
b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality. I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe. Vengeance = / = morality remember the old saying: "An eye for an eye puts you in the middle of Saudi Arabia sharia law." Or something like that.
"Eye for an eye" is a set of morals. It's just one that we don't agree with (as opposed to a lot of people on Earth).
Although to be completely precise, what I've learned from rehabilitation studies on criminals is that a lot of prison sentences - in the extent and the content that they are given (being put away with a bunch of other criminals without anyone helping them getting them back on the right path) - are uncalled for from a crime prevention point of view. So I'd argue that the public's revenge on the criminal is a big part of what makes western penal law what it is. It's just strongly conveyed because the law can't present itself that way.
|
|
|
There goes TL again.
Has anybody ever experienced death of a loved one? Death is the most horrible thing in the world. Bullying doesn´t even get close. I experienced both.
If you must get your vengeance on your bullies get a bat or learn a martial art.
If you want to solve that problem, changing schools is the only thing I know to work.
But killing someone with a gun, probably cold blooded, that´s just wrong.
The media hype it up and I guess it´s the reason school shootings happen so often: If you hear about kids that were bullied shooting their tormentors often enough, then some will actually think that´s a legitimate way to deal with it.
That one kid just ruined his own life by becoming a murderer.
|
This is a really sensitive topic. I wonder what is going through the aggressor's parents minds at the moment. Why did no one call him out on his warning signs? I hope the injured victims recover quickly.
Damn man whatever happened to the days when if you got bullied you would man up and fight after school by the playground or something. I remember when I was in High School this guy tried to bully me, but I stopped him and choked the shit out of him. I was like the hero after that happened (even though I got suspended from the school bus). Nobody fucked with me after that. I don't know the shooter's full story though. Reading the article it definitely looks like he was outnumbered and the stress took him over.
Really sad story  I hope stories like these will stop happening. I always get flashbacks of the horrible Columbine incident.
|
On February 28 2012 09:38 kellenr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:36 SKC wrote:On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. Exactly, for a lot of people nothing is. That's why several countries don't have the death penalty and why it is a controversial topic. Yeah, I know for some people nothing is. I was just trying to bring to light how silly they are for thinking that. I'm not saying we should go around executing people for no reason. But to think that there aren't some evil people out there that totally deserve to die is just... ignorant.I can honestly say the only reason I like living in Texas is because here, when you kill someone, we kill you back.
While I do pity the killer, I've honestly agreed with everything you've said in this thread, because you are right about the killer's actions being far worse than those of the bullies. In my opinion you're wrong about this being ignorant though. It's interesting that you're in favor of the death penalty, because that issue and your response to this boy's actions are kind of related. Being against the death penalty isn't necessarily about platitudes like life is sacred, it's more about empathizing with whatever situation might have led someone to commit their deed enough that you refuse to see them killed for it no matter how strongly you might disagree. The point is that all of us are broken in one way or another. That you're fortunate to be emotionally healthy enough to be able to cope with what life throws your way doesn't mean everyone is. This kid is obviously emotionally crippled, there can be no doubt of that. You should be able to empathize with the fact that it was a broken human being that committed the crime, regardless of the fact that he was totally and completely wrong to do it. What is it like to live life that way and make choices with that mindset? You obviously don't know, and neither do I for that matter. On that note, it might be more ignorant to believe your judgment and experience are valid enough to deal him death.
|
On February 28 2012 09:59 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:53 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 07:38 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
You cannot say bullying was the cause at this point!! Did you even follow Columbine?? Everyone jumped on the bully bandwagon within MINUTES. There was literally a whole, national campaign against bullying. But guess what... that's not why they did it! Eric was the most stereotypical psychopath EVER. He had no empathy, he hated the human race, he believed in natural selection, and he wanted to be infamous. He was an adept liar and he spent all his spare time making pipe bombs in his basement. Eric was dating like a 23 year old girl, Dylan had a date to prom! These kids were not the big losers they were made out to be. Eric was a classic psychopath and Dylan was a suicidal follower.
I'm not saying bullying wasn't the cause, i'm saying we can't know conclusively yet if it was. a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me? b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me?
b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality. I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe. Vengeance = / = morality remember the old saying: "An eye for an eye puts you in the middle of Saudi Arabia sharia law." Or something like that.
There's a difference between private vengeance and justice from a legitimate authority. Calling for someone's execution is not the same as expressing a desire to murder them, so it doesn't really fit the 'eye for an eye' saying.
|
I actually went to a high school in the same district as Chardon (we played them in football every year). It really is a quaint quiet town as described. I work about 10 minutes away from the city now, and people were pretty miserable all day.
|
people need to stop being such pussies when it comes to bullying - it is not a serious thing liek eberyone thinks, the real problem is with the kid who shot people.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 28 2012 10:35 oopsyoucantmove wrote:
people need to stop being such pussies when it comes to bullying - it is not a serious thing liek eberyone thinks, the real problem is with the kid who shot people.
"Don't be a pussy when it comes to bullying"
A beautifully prevalent attitude for our country in particular. Too bad this kid happened to listen...
On February 28 2012 10:27 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 09:59 Jormundr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:53 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:47 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me?
b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Just to address this: I've seen Shutter Island, can't remember the scene though. Shouldn't matter. There are two big differences that I can conceive between the two scenarios which make it a clumsy comparison: A) US soldiers executing concentration camp guards don't act on their own will. It's not an act of revenge or retribution, it's primarily following orders. The vast majority of them won't have suffered direct losses from the monstrosities committed in the German camps (given that they're US soldiers and not fellow Europeans). There would be no need to feel compassion for them because the soldiers didn't suffer in person. B) Linked to point a: the feelings of the "audience", the "moral observers", are of course influenced by the circumstances of the act, especially when it's the story of the small guy acting up against the big guy. The one who always got tormented deserves his revenge. In the Shutter Island scenario, the "revenge" reaction ensues by the hands of a state's executory organ. It's not something that engages the observer's emotions, it's not a person that we feel compassion with. It's an apparatus of state, nothing more. Plus, of course it depends on how it's presented in the respective scene. If Scorsese wanted to shoot it in a way that is critical of the execution, it will influence the viewers' attitude. On February 28 2012 09:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 07:45 Spekulatius wrote:
[quote]
a) So if the cause was bullying, would you agree with me?
b) That's why I included "if the media coverage isn't total crap" in my post. We can only discuss the information that's being given to us right now. We shouldn't be taking too much from Columbine or Virginia Tech as they're particular cases. If there are patterns in school shooters' characters that lead to those shootings, fine, we can cautiously use them to analyse the Ohio shooting at hand. But what we have so far is "bullied student shoots his bully + collateral damage". And that's what being talked about, right? If we were supposed to shut up until the situation is cleared up entirely in some months' time, this thread wouldn't be open. Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada. I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims. I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. Let me make this clear. I have plenty of sympathy for people that are bullied and don't kill. But when said bully attempts to murder 5 people, I can't, as an honest moral person, say that I feel any sympathy for them. Apparently that makes me some freak of nature. Lets go for a little hypothetical. Say the mother of this murdered boy was sitting across the table from you, looking deep into your eyes. You mean to tell me you could look her in the face and say, "I have sympathy for the kid that just shot your sun in the face." Could you do it? Could you? I couldn't. I think i'd say something like, "I have so much sympathy for your and your loss, I hope that bastard that did it is tried as an adult and put to death." First bold part: That's the thing though. Empathy in that situation is natural. Morals are never, they're a cultural construct. Your morals influence your judgement of the shooting while others let their own experience guide them or convince them. All I'm saying is, your morals override the natural reaction which in no way makes you dishonest. It's just a different point of view. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel differently about it; I just mean that diverging reactions to yours are fairly conclusive as well (the empathy thingy). And about your scenario: I wouldn't tell her that for the sole reason of not hurting her feelings. I'd be dishonest for her sake and I'd be talking to her just like you would. That would be my morals kicking in then, overriding my honesty. On February 28 2012 09:29 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 09:24 Endymion wrote:On February 28 2012 09:18 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:54 kellenr wrote:On February 28 2012 08:30 Spekulatius wrote:On February 28 2012 08:27 kellenr wrote:
[quote]
Yes if the investigation concludes it was bullying, I will agree that that was the motive. But I don't feel any sympathy for a guy that brings a gun to school and starts shooting his peers, regardless of the "reasons" he did it. Zilch, zero, nada.
I will feel sorry for the victims that where shot, killed and maimed, and only those said victims.
I'm just baffled I seem to be in the minority. Ever been bullied? Ever had somewhat comparable feelings of loneliness, desperation and anger? If not, well, I'm not surprised you don't feel empathy. Again, if that's what it was. Ever been shot? Ever had a loved one shot? Do you know the feelings of pain and desperation they go through during reconstructive surgery? If not, well, i'm not surprised you don't feel empathy for them. (wait, yes I am.) Hiedeman reminded Judge McDermott, "He had no pity on Cassie Jo, he deserves no pity, he showed no mercy on September 22nd, 2006 and he deserves none." Have fun feeling sorry for murderers. I, for one, will take no part in it. Feeling empathy for someone who's had a tough time is natural. Even more so when they've gone through intense bullying. What your implying (with the help of your quotation) is the question if the harsh (family/school) background of a murderer should be a reason to mitigate the sentence he will receive once convicted. Which is a totally different question. Suffering alongside a person who later turns against his oppressors or tormenters is human. That's why the French Revolution is looked so highly upon, that's why we cheer for those blue creatures killing humans in Avatar and that's why everyone (except you apparently) find this event kinda hard to judge morally. I don't think your last part is true. Have you ever seen shutter island? basically there is a scene where american GIs line up a bunch of concentration camp guards and gun them down, which in the US would normally be pretty "patriotic," at least imo, but in the movie it portrays it as a morally wrong thing to do (killing those who have killed). A more recent example of this would be debating if the guy who shot up the island near oslo should be put to death (does that many deaths constitute killing him, or being unable to be rehabilitated etc..) Lol, if anyone thinks that Oslo child murderer shouldn't be put to death, I seriously, seriously pitty them. If hunting children with a high caliber automatic weapon isn't reason enough to execute someone, then apparently nothing is. And see, there's your emotions overwhelming your morals and rationality. I would say it's a very moral action to condemn someone that murdered 60 something children to death. Letting that dude live would be about the most immoral thing you could ever do in the history of the Universe. Vengeance = / = morality remember the old saying: "An eye for an eye puts you in the middle of Saudi Arabia sharia law." Or something like that. There's a difference between private vengeance and justice from a legitimate authority. Calling for someone's execution is not the same as expressing a desire to murder them, so it doesn't really fit the 'eye for an eye' saying.
So the fact that the government puts on a nice show with a "jury of your peers" makes it morally correct.
Good to know.
|
I feel terrible hearing about this, my thoughts go out to everyone involved.
|
On February 28 2012 10:35 oopsyoucantmove wrote:
people need to stop being such pussies when it comes to bullying - it is not a serious thing liek eberyone thinks, the real problem is with the kid who shot people.
bullying is a serious thing as evidenced by what took place. better steps should be taken by schools to prevent kids like the gunman from being pushed to the edge.
|
While this is clearly over the line, I can understand where this guy was coming from. I was bullied pretty bad throughout elementary/middle/high school, only ever got close to fighting someone once, killing though is so absurd and extreme.
I imagine he must have been bullied a lot to have gone this far (or maybe it has gotten so easy to get a gun that there's something wrong with the world O.o), or he's completely crazy, which is possible. Bullies have no place in school, but to kill them... that is worse than bullying. Hopefully this kid's got what's coming at him, I hope the other families can recover, especially the family of the dead student.
|
My thoughts on the whole "people don't deserve to die for being a jerk" thing.
When you're young school seems like everything. If you're ostracized in high school that's basically your entire world. So you're basically living your life as an outcast. Which can obviously lead to all sorts of issues, on top of issues that may have existed before. Depression, suicidal thoughts, murderous thoughts, etc. When you're young and naive you might think there's no way out and life is never going to change. As someone who turns 30 in a week (FML!) I'll tell any youngins out there things change, so don't get too distraught, if you think you need help go reach out to someone.
As people become adults certain boundaries develop. Especially the "man code" which comes with certain rules that men generally abide by. One of the rules is if you lay your hands on another man he's within his right to beat you within an inch of your life. Whether or not he does is up to him, but you don't touch another man in an aggressive fashion or you've basically signed your own death warrant. I think this sort of keeps bullies in check after high school. Nothing like that really exists, or is followed by teens.
So you've got a kid getting verbally abused and pushed around by someone no doubt bigger than him on his "home turf". He sees no way out, no way to change things, no one will stand up for him, he doesn't think he can stand up for himself, and there isn't that social structure of sorts to keep the bully in check. I don't think what happened should have happened, no one should have to die over this. But at the same time things being the way they are I can't say the outcome is surprising either. If things were structured differently, if people cared, if someone stuck up for him I don't think this happens.
I was lucky to not get bullied in high school. I was a nerd (obviously) but being big keeps people from wanting to mess around. I didn't have many "enemies" I sort of just hung out with whoever I liked and tried to make the best of things. I'd also say to any kids out there its possible to be yourself, love games, be a nerd, and be on good terms with virtually everyone if you do things properly. Try and be as outgoing as you can, have fun, you'd be surprised at how much you might have in common with some of the jocks, some of the skaters, some of the metal heads, some of the stoners, some of the cute popular girls =) You'll never know if you don't try kids!
|
Another kid died... I hope that the shooter is prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'm pretty sure that Ohio has capital punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
