Connecticut school shooting - Page 28

On December 15 2012 07:57 sekritzzz wrote:

Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.

Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.

On December 15 2012 08:05 ssj114 wrote:


I actually think people do "care" about lives in 3rd world countries. "Care" as in find it "sad" or "tragic". But human perception of "sadness" and "tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean they will go out help those in need or become better people.

I don't understand why you're comparing the acts of the USA with this "tragedy". Acts of the USA in that context are (mostly) and apparently with the "intent" of doing a "greater good". Where is the "greater good" in what has happened with the kids? The only positive I see from an evolutionary point of view (or whatever you believe) is that there is one less "murderer" in the world (he shot himself right?) and that the human population is less likely to become overcrowded etc.

On December 15 2012 08:03 Aulisemia wrote:
All of you are 100% correct of course. I really should be posting on an internet forum saying how awful this tragic event was, how I'm going to now pull my kids out of public schools to keep them safe and posting links to the person's facebook page and yelling at people about gun control and religion in schools.

You have to be a realist to get through life, you have to be realistic about what you are seeing and what the proper level of response is. "Bad" things happen to people every second of every day, it doesn't make it right or wrong, just or injust. It just is, that's how the universe works. It doesn't share your beliefs or morality system or even an altruistic level of empathy for those outside of one's Monkeysphere (Dunbar's number).

Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children? If the answer is no then I suggest that cherry picking is equal or perhaps a worse response than my perspective-based approach to dealing with it.

On December 15 2012 08:09 ssj114 wrote:


But who are you to judge how people should react? As I said, it's the context. What you're arguing it along the lines of asking:
"Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children?"

...when you cried when your Mother and Father (or whatever person you personally "love" a lot in this world) died after a drunk driver crashed into their vehicle. So is that "cherry picking" too?

On December 15 2012 08:01 Ryalnos wrote:


I would say that it's the context that makes people more sad about it.

On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote:
1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.

On December 15 2012 08:11 ssj114 wrote:


Exactly - I made exactly that point in my next paragraph of the same post you quoted.

On December 15 2012 08:11 Mu` wrote:


Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children...
If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?

You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).

Now this said, when i read this :
The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.

-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one).
Do people think coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equal showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should". Funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy.

PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt prove anything about mental disorder (still probably a bit though)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.

We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is).
But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher.
Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...

Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 :
Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means".
> throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?

On December 15 2012 08:05 ssj114 wrote:


I actually think people do "care" about lives in 3rd world countries. "Care" as in find it "sad" or "tragic". But human perception of "sadness" and "tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean they will go out help those in need or become better people.

I don't understand why you're comparing the acts of the USA with this "tragedy". Acts of the USA in that context are (mostly) and apparently with the "intent" of doing a "greater good". Where is the "greater good" in what has happened with the kids? The only positive I see from an evolutionary point of view (or whatever you believe) is that there is one less "murderer" in the world (he shot himself right?) and that the human population is less likely to become overcrowded etc.

On December 15 2012 08:14 natrus wrote:

Your wrong. More than 100,000 people being killed for "the greater good" isnt comparable to 30 people dying. A life is a life is a life. I dont buy your argument that some lives are worth so much more than others. And the over crowding comment was sickening.

On December 15 2012 08:11 Mu` wrote:


Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children...
If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?

You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).

Now this said, when i read this :
The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.

-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one).
Do people think that coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equals showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that's it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should", funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy this way.

PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt "prove" anything about mental disorder (even if probably has some)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.

We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is).
But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher.
Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...

Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 :
Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means".
> throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?

On December 15 2012 08:14 bo1b wrote:

It always amazes me how someone can completely miss the point, make a horrible comparison and then go on a tangent irrelevant to the quote.