Virginia Tech Massacre

[greg]

If you consider rent for a studio at $1,900/month good news, then yes...

that's no problem for all the famous rappers, though- that's like losing a penny for them.
and they won't have any rage over a lost penny.....

[Mayfielder]

The statement "that Americans are violent and gun-loving, and citing Virginia Tech as an example" is idiotic, I agree, but I don't see how him being Korean is contrary to it. He grew up largely in America and lived in American culture.

I don't see why not. The idea that you must accept both (1) a correlation between nationality or race and shooting rampages and (2) a correlation between shooting rampages and locations, without being able to admit the possibility of one or the other being false, is a logical fallacy. So, yes, I can have it "both" ways. But feel free to explain your reasoning, as I don't see any of it.

-CS

You agree with me that it's stupid to think that Americans are violent and gun-loving and you agree that it's idiotic to give VT as an example to support this belief. But then you say that you don't see how the gunman being Korean is contrary to it. It's not that it's contrary to that belief, it's that it's non-supportive of that belief.
     Let me make an analogy : Imagine that a mutual friend of ours is of the belief that all swans are white. (An erroneous belief, BTW, as there are black swans but he's too dumb to know that.) Now imagine that, in an attempt to lend credence to his belief, he points to a white dove. Would that make any sense at all? Mind you, the existance of a white dove is not contrary to his (false) belief, it just does nothing to support it.
     Believing that Americans are prone to shooting sprees and citing VT as evidence makes as much sense - none. Only now instead of presenting a dove as "evidence" for a belief about swans there are those presenting a Korean as "evidence" for a belief about Americans.
     You point out that he grew up and lived in US culture. Nonetheless, he was Korean. He never took out US citizenship. From what I've read in the newspaper he was born in Korea, to Korean parents, grew up speaking Korean, spent his early childhood in Korea, later lived in the Korean community of an American city, and was a South Korea national. That makes him Korean, doesn't it? Well, that's all I said in my OP. What is it about that simple declarative statement that's factual incorrect? And if you're going to concede that he was Korean but then dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion about whether the VT mass shooting is inherently American in nature, then I'm going to take the fact that the shooting took place in the US and label it irrelevant. Why not? If you can I can.
     Also, when I say you can't have it both ways, you say "I don't see why not". You point out that there are two correlations being considered - one between the rampage and nationality, the other between the rampage and location - and that the idea that you must accept both without admitting the possibility of one or the other being false is a logical fallacy. When I say you can't have it both ways I do not mean you have to accept both in order to be logical - I mean you have to accept both in order to be fair. All you're doing is being selective in emphasising the one that gives weight to your contention - that the shooting is somehow typically American - while dismissing the other as irrelevant. You say, "yes, I can have it both ways". Very well then, you can - but only by being intellectually dishonest.
     Look, my point here is very simple. All I'm really saying is that in a discussion about VT, if someone is going to tell me (or at least strongly imply) that the shooting is intrinsic to the American character, then I'm going to point out that the gunman was Korean. If you're going to talk nationality (American), then I'm going to talk nationality (Korean).         

[head-case]

     You agree with me that it's stupid to think that Americans are violent and gun-loving and you agree that it's idiotic to give VT as an example to support this belief. But then you say that you don't see how the gunman being Korean is contrary to it. It's not that it's contrary to that belief, it's that it's non-supportive of that belief.
     Let me make an analogy : Imagine that a mutual friend of ours is of the belief that all swans are white. (An erroneous belief, BTW, as there are black swans but he's too dumb to know that.) Now imagine that, in an attempt to lend credence to his belief, he points to a white dove. Would that make any sense at all? Mind you, the existance of a white dove is not contrary to his (false) belief, it just does nothing to support it.
     Believing that Americans are prone to shooting sprees and citing VT as evidence makes as much sense - none. Only now instead of presenting a dove as "evidence" for a belief about swans there are those presenting a Korean as "evidence" for a belief about Americans.
     You point out that he grew up and lived in US culture. Nonetheless, he was Korean. He never took out US citizenship. From what I've read in the newspaper he was born in Korea, to Korean parents, grew up speaking Korean, spent his early childhood in Korea, later lived in the Korean community of an American city, and was a South Korea national. That makes him Korean, doesn't it? Well, that's all I said in my OP. What is it about that simple declarative statement that's factual incorrect? And if you're going to concede that he was Korean but then dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion about whether the VT mass shooting is inherently American in nature, then I'm going to take the fact that the shooting took place in the US and label it irrelevant. Why not? If you can I can.
     Also, when I say you can't have it both ways, you say "I don't see why not". You point out that there are two correlations being considered - one between the rampage and nationality, the other between the rampage and location - and that the idea that you must accept both without admitting the possibility of one or the other being false is a logical fallacy. When I say you can't have it both ways I do not mean you have to accept both in order to be logical - I mean you have to accept both in order to be fair. All you're doing is being selective in emphasising the one that gives weight to your contention - that the shooting is somehow typically American - while dismissing the other as irrelevant. You say, "yes, I can have it both ways". Very well then, you can - but only by being intellectually dishonest.
     Look, my point here is very simple. All I'm really saying is that in a discussion about VT, if someone is going to tell me (or at least strongly imply) that the shooting is intrinsic to the American character, then I'm going to point out that the gunman was Korean. If you're going to talk nationality (American), then I'm going to talk nationality (Korean).         

Boy, it's really difficult to figure out what you are trying to say. 

The person in question had a severe mental illness.  That is a characteristic failure mode of the human brain, and is more or less universal.  However, this psychopathology manifested itself in the form of a shooting spree.  This clearly reflected the cultural in which the person was immersed, which is America, not Korea.  However this does not indicate that shooting sprees are part of American culture, only that this is the effect that American culture has on a severely deranged person.

[cx]

When I say you can't have it both ways I do not mean you have to accept both in order to be logical - I mean you have to accept both in order to be fair. All you're doing is being selective in emphasising the one that gives weight to your contention - that the shooting is somehow typically American - while dismissing the other as irrelevant. You say, "yes, I can have it both ways". Very well then, you can - but only by being intellectually dishonest.

No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest. I'll address most of the points you raised below.

     Believing that Americans are prone to shooting sprees and citing VT as evidence makes as much sense - none.

I didn't.

But your whole talk of swans seems a little wobbly to me. If one agrees that American culture certainly had an effect on the shooter (which it undeniably did, reasonably more so than any other culture), than it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings. One finds in fact that there is a potential correlation, citing other similar events disproportionately attributed to America. One also considers the shooter's nationality and race. There is no other information that points to either of these factors having a general trend. Of course everything should be "considered," if even as common sensibly as above.

And if you're going to concede that he was Korean but then dismiss it as irrelevant in a discussion about whether the VT mass shooting is inherently American in nature, then I'm going to take the fact that the shooting took place in the US and label it irrelevant. Why not? If you can I can.

Like I said before, there is a reason (repeated occurrences) to believe America is prone to school shootings, more so than other countries. There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean is part of some national or racial trend. To say him being Korean has something to do with it: well, OBVIOUSLY, at some level of pedantry, it has something to do with it. And I'm sure the specific schools he went to had SOMETHING to do with it. But there is no good reason to believe Koreans have mass murdering genes or murderous nationalistic tendencies from this incident.

     Look, my point here is very simple. All I'm really saying is that in a discussion about VT, if someone is going to tell me (or at least strongly imply) that the shooting is intrinsic to the American character, then I'm going to point out that the gunman was Korean. If you're going to talk nationality (American), then I'm going to talk nationality (Korean).         

"Intrinsic to the American character" seems to imply mass shootings are somehow characteristic of the average American individual. I never heard anyone suggest that, and I wouldn't take it quite seriously -- I think we agree most Americans are reasonable and moderate people. What some people have suggested, and I'm certainly not against the suggestion, is that there is a general trend of school shootings in American culture, more so than other places, and concurrently American culture has something to do with it. That there is a trend or a correlation is indeed a suggestion, perhaps a very good one. That there actually are a disproportionate number of these shootings in America is fact.

--CS

[greg]

Like I said before, there is a reason (repeated occurrences) to believe America is prone to school shootings, more so than other countries.

Maybe it's like a chain reaction? After Columbine, people were always afraid another school shooting would happen, so it gets the idea into people's minds. So if someone like Cho, who is feeling really bad, wants to do something nasty, he gets the idea of school shooting since it's already happened before.
Personally, I prefer the type of school shooting where the shooter shoots the school building instead of the students. It's much safer and a more constructive way to express that you don't care much for school  0:)

[carlos]

And if somebody feels like to kill other, he/she should
choose politicians, and no innocent students.                                                                                                                                                                                                               

[greg]

And if somebody feels like to kill other, he/she should
choose politicians, and no innocent students.                                                                                                                                                                                                               

or maybe they should just kill terrorists?

[Mayfielder]

No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest. I'll address most of the points you raised below.

I didn't.

But your whole talk of swans seems a little wobbly to me. If one agrees that American culture certainly had an effect on the shooter (which it undeniably did, reasonably more so than any other culture), than it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings. One finds in fact that there is a potential correlation, citing other similar events disproportionately attributed to America. One also considers the shooter's nationality and race. There is no other information that points to either of these factors having a general trend. Of course everything should be "considered," if even as common sensibly as above.

Like I said before, there is a reason (repeated occurrences) to believe America is prone to school shootings, more so than other countries. There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean is part of some national or racial trend. To say him being Korean has something to do with it: well, OBVIOUSLY, at some level of pedantry, it has something to do with it. And I'm sure the specific schools he went to had SOMETHING to do with it. But there is no good reason to believe Koreans have mass murdering genes or murderous nationalistic tendencies from this incident.

"Intrinsic to the American character" seems to imply mass shootings are somehow characteristic of the average American individual. I never heard anyone suggest that, and I wouldn't take it quite seriously -- I think we agree most Americans are reasonable and moderate people. What some people have suggested, and I'm certainly not against the suggestion, is that there is a general trend of school shootings in American culture, more so than other places, and concurrently American culture has something to do with it. That there is a trend or a correlation is indeed a suggestion, perhaps a very good one. That there actually are a disproportionate number of these shootings in America is fact.

--CS

You say "If one agrees that American culture had an effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings." That, my friend, is what's known as a tautology. If you can make one I can make one - to wit : If one agrees that American culture had no effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider that there is no connection between American culture and shootings.
     You say "There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean has something to do with it." Of course not. I never said so. Re-read my posts - all I said is that he was Korean - period. Now you might reasonably think "OK, he was Korean. But why does Mayfielder point this out?" I do this to give you a feel for what I experience when I read the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture. If someone attempts to support this bizarre belief by making the irrelevant observation that the shooting tool place in the US, then I respond by making the equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean. I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality, whether the nationality of the shooter or the nation in which the shooting occured. The shooting has nothing to do with Koreanness and it has nothing to do with Americanness. But a number of posters have said or implied that it is somehow an indictment of America. I'm just responding to that.
     You say "There is no reason to believe Koreans have mass murdering genes from this incident." That statement is absolutely true. Now I've got a statement that absolutely true : There is no reason to believe Americans are infected with an I-think-I'll-kill-some-people-today virus from this incident. And yet, incredibly, that's what you're implying when you say "it's not as if he came over last week" and "he grew up largely im America and lived in American culture" as though during his 15 years here he caught something the way you might catch a cold from being in a room with infected people.
     The fact that this rampage took place means that one (ONE, mind you) individual was sick in the head and killed people. The fact that he was Korean means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was Korean. The fact that it took place in America means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that it took place in America. It is not a reflection on American culture.
     And this leads to a question I have - why is it that when a multiple shooting takes place anywhere in the world outside the US it's seen for what it is? An aberation. An anomoly. A deviation. It is not looked upon as being indicative of the culture of the country it took place in but is rightly looked upon as reflecting solely on the individual who committed it. Does the school shooting in Montreal last September when 20 people were shot mean that Canada has a gun culture? No? Well, how about the school shooting in Montreal in Dec 89 when 13 people were killed or Montreal in Aug 92 or Alberta Apr 99? No? Does the fact that 16 people were killed in a school shooting in Erfurt, Germany in 2002 mean that German culture is to blame? No? How about the school shootings in Branneburg in 2000, Munich in 2002, and Emsdetten in 2006? No? Does the bloodbath in Dunbane, Scotland school shooting in March 1996 when 17 were killed mean there's a sickness in the British soul? No? How about the mass killing in Hungerford, England in Aug 87? No? How about the Continent? School shootings in Stockholm, Sweden in Jan 2001 and Veghel, Netherlands Dec 99. Do Europeans love violence? No? School shootings in other countries - Kenya Mar 2001 and Osaka, Japan June 2001. How about 35 killed in Australia in April 1996? No? But Columbine and Virginia Tech? YES! YES! YES! Proof positive that Americans are gun-lovin' freaks who are violent by nature, doncha know? It's not the poor gunmen's fault - what'ya expect being exposed to that culture? Although you deny it CS, you can't have it both ways. Either mass gun deaths in America and the rest of the world are due to the culture in which the gunmen live OR (on a more positive note) we look upon the people and cultures of all countries as being innocent in these tragedies that, fortunately, are extremely rare and attributable only to the sick individuals who carry them out.
     So why single out America? The only thing you've given me, CS, is that there is evidently more shootings in the US that elsewhere. But bear in mind there are more people in the US than in most countries - recently hitting the 300,000,000 mark. If country A has twice as many gun deaths as country B you might well make the obvious statement that country A has a more gun deaths that country B. But what if the population of country A is three times the population of country B? On a per capita basis it's country B that has a bigger gun death problem that country A. And even if the rate is proportionately higher in the US what does that mean? Only that the US differs from other countries only in degree, not in kind. And even if you consider a difference in degree to be significant what are you actually doing? You're just choosing an arbitrary rate and decreeing that if a country is above this standard in gun deaths then its culture is to blame and if a country is below this standard then its culture is not to blame.
     OK, my fingers are getting tired from all this typing - I'll stop now. But be sure to respond and tell all about how wrong I am in my thinking.
     PS You said "No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest." OK, I'll accept that.

[greg]

lol, I have to say I agree with Mayfielder.
With the population thing..... is it easy to get guns in India or China? just wondering

[Mayfielder]

     I just thought of one more thing. After this I promise not to say any more on the subject.
     Do you know how many high school students there are in the US? About 16.5 million. Do you know how many college students there are in the US? About 17.5 million. Add the two and you've got 34 million high school and college students in the United States. Count them again in, say, ten years and practically no one in the first counting will be in the second counting and so after a decade you essentially double that. So over the past few decades there have been God-only-knows how many tens of millions upon tens of millions of high school and college students in America. Now let me ask you something - how many of those students go on a shooting rampage at their school?
     Don't you see?
     It's not the .000001 % that's representative of American culture.
     It's the 99.99999 % that don't shoot up their school that's representative of American culture.
     Virginia Tech is an aberration that no more reflects American culture than a shooting anywhere else in the world reflects that country's culture. Can't you see this? It's so obvious.
     Sorry if I seem to dwell on this but as someone who has never (and I mean literally not once) so much as touched a gun in my life, let alone owned or fired one (and I'm as American as you can get) I take it as a personal insult when someone says there's something inherently violent in American culture. I'm about as belligerant as a dead Quaker and I can't believe I'm atypical in this regard.
     BTW, I just read that the only cultural influence that anyone has been able to attribute to the VT shooter are violent Korean films he had an obsession with - that's right - Korean. But I still say that Koreanness, like Americanness, had nothing to do with this guy going off his nut. I just found it interesting.
     OK, I'm now done with this topic.
     PS, Greg, I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to get guns in India or China. I thank you for saying you agree with me - at least someone on this thread gave me moral support.

[cx]

You say "If one agrees that American culture had an effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider the connection between American culture and shootings." That, my friend, is what's known as a tautology. If you can make one I can make one - to wit : If one agrees that American culture had no effect on the shooter, then it is reasonable to consider that there is no connection between American culture and shootings.

I just don't think "American culture had no effect on the shooter" is a sensible statement.

     You say "There is no reason to believe that the shooter being Korean has something to do with it." Of course not. I never said so. Re-read my posts - all I said is that he was Korean - period. Now you might reasonably think "OK, he was Korean. But why does Mayfielder point this out?" I do this to give you a feel for what I experience when I read the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture. If someone attempts to support this bizarre belief by making the irrelevant observation that the shooting tool place in the US, then I respond by making the equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean. I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality, whether the nationality of the shooter or the nation in which the shooting occured. The shooting has nothing to do with Koreanness and it has nothing to do with Americanness. But a number of posters have said or implied that it is somehow an indictment of America. I'm just responding to that.

I don't think "the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture" is an absurd idea. Definitely worth consideration.

"[...] equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean." Equally irrelevant? Sorry, I disagree, and I thought my stance on that was clear in my last post.

"I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality:" but nationality is not the same thing as culture. There are a lot of vague terms being thrown around here (by myself as well).

There is no reason to believe Americans are infected with an I-think-I'll-kill-some-people-today virus from this incident.

I agree, and I said that in my last post.

And yet, incredibly, that's what you're implying when you say "it's not as if he came over last week" and "he grew up largely im America and lived in American culture" as though during his 15 years here he caught something the way you might catch a cold from being in a room with infected people.

There's a big difference between saying (1) this troubled young man's actions were somehow catalyzed by his environment and (2) his environment somehow passed down the tendencies of its members to him. I'm saying (1). You quote me as saying (2). Just clearing that up.

     The fact that this rampage took place means that one (ONE, mind you) individual was sick in the head and killed people. The fact that he was Korean means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was Korean. The fact that it took place in America means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that it took place in America. It is not a reflection on American culture.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between our arguments. I am saying, as above, American society somehow, very likely, catalyzed the actions of the shooter, not that American society turns normal citizens into mass murderers. Cho had problems not common to most people, I think we all agree on that.

And this leads to a question I have - why is it that when a multiple shooting takes place anywhere in the world outside the US it's seen for what it is? An aberation. An anomoly. A deviation. It is not looked upon as being indicative of the culture of the country it took place in but is rightly looked upon as reflecting solely on the individual who committed it. Does the school shooting in Montreal last September when 20 people were shot mean that Canada has a gun culture? No? Well, how about the school shooting in Montreal in Dec 89 when 13 people were killed or Montreal in Aug 92 or Alberta Apr 99? No? Does the fact that 16 people were killed in a school shooting in Erfurt, Germany in 2002 mean that German culture is to blame? No? How about the school shootings in Branneburg in 2000, Munich in 2002, and Emsdetten in 2006? No? Does the bloodbath in Dunbane, Scotland school shooting in March 1996 when 17 were killed mean there's a sickness in the British soul? No? How about the mass killing in Hungerford, England in Aug 87? No? How about the Continent? School shootings in Stockholm, Sweden in Jan 2001 and Veghel, Netherlands Dec 99. Do Europeans love violence? No? School shootings in other countries - Kenya Mar 2001 and Osaka, Japan June 2001. How about 35 killed in Australia in April 1996? No? But Columbine and Virginia Tech? YES! YES! YES! Proof positive that Americans are gun-lovin' freaks who are violent by nature, doncha know? It's not the poor gunmen's fault - what'ya expect being exposed to that culture? Although you deny it CS, you can't have it both ways. Either mass gun deaths in America and the rest of the world are due to the culture in which the gunmen live OR (on a more positive note) we look upon the people and cultures of all countries as being innocent in these tragedies that, fortunately, are extremely rare and attributable only to the sick individuals who carry them out.

For the record, those international incidents, most of them, were publicized and in the media plenty. American shootings get more coverage in America because they're domestic.

Your list of incidents doesn't change the fact that America has more school shootings than those other countries. But your next point is the more interesting one:

So why single out America? The only thing you've given me, CS, is that there is evidently more shootings in the US that elsewhere. But bear in mind there are more people in the US than in most countries - recently hitting the 300,000,000 mark. If country A has twice as many gun deaths as country B you might well make the obvious statement that country A has a more gun deaths that country B. But what if the population of country A is three times the population of country B? On a per capita basis it's country B that has a bigger gun death problem that country A. And even if the rate is proportionately higher in the US what does that mean? Only that the US differs from other countries only in degree, not in kind. And even if you consider a difference in degree to be significant what are you actually doing? You're just choosing an arbitrary rate and decreeing that if a country is above this standard in gun deaths then its culture is to blame and if a country is below this standard then its culture is not to blame.

I think it would be worthwhile to investigate this. I admit that not considering the populations of countries is unfair. But does America have about equal or less than other regions of the world when statistically adjusted? I'd be interested to find out.

These are interesting:

http://www.svrc.net/ShootingsMap.htm
http://www.keystosaferschools.com/Map_School_Shootings.htm

I suppose you could even bring this to a regional level in the US; ie. the Midwest hardly ever has school shootings (according to the above link).

     OK, my fingers are getting tired from all this typing - I'll stop now. But be sure to respond and tell all about how wrong I am in my thinking.

Let me humble myself and say I realized I had looked at some things too simply at first. But I hope our little battle of words here has made you think as well. I maintain our initial disagreement was largely semantical, however (though you may disagree).
   

PS You said "No, I'm not dishonest. I might be wrong, but not dishonest." OK, I'll accept that.

Thanks. --CS

[cx]

     PS, Greg, I have no idea how easy or difficult it is to get guns in India or China. I thank you for saying you agree with me - at least someone on this thread gave me moral support.

I tried researching the topic and found little statistical studies on the topic of school shootings, demographically and regionally; so the points you raise are well taken, but I'd like to find out more about the conclusions those considerations bring about.

And about the quote above, it is not a moral issue to me, and I hope you realize there is nothing personal about this debate.

--CS

[greg]

I just don't think "American culture had no effect on the shooter" is a sensible statement.

I don't think "the absurd contention that the VT rampage is attributable to American culture" is an absurd idea. Definitely worth consideration.

"[...] equally irrelevant observation that the shooter was Korean." Equally irrelevant? Sorry, I disagree, and I thought my stance on that was clear in my last post.

"I'm pointing out the absurdity of attributing this tragedy to nationality:" but nationality is not the same thing as culture. There are a lot of vague terms being thrown around here (by myself as well).

I agree, and I said that in my last post.

There's a big difference between saying (1) this troubled young man's actions were somehow catalyzed by his environment and (2) his environment somehow passed down the tendencies of its members to him. I'm saying (1). You quote me as saying (2). Just clearing that up.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between our arguments. I am saying, as above, American society somehow, very likely, catalyzed the actions of the shooter, not that American society turns normal citizens into mass murderers. Cho had problems not common to most people, I think we all agree on that.

Ok, if you're going to say that American culture had some kind of effect on this troubled guy's mind, could you give us an example of anything specific? Violent video games maybe? Western movies? People he knew that were into guns and violence?
The thing is, this guy was completely non-social and almost never talked to anyone, so it's hard to think of this guy being influenced by any culture...

I tried researching the topic and found little statistical studies on the topic of school shootings, demographically and regionally; so the points you raise are well taken, but I'd like to find out more about the conclusions those considerations bring about.

And about the quote above, it is not a moral issue to me, and I hope you realize there is nothing personal about this debate.

ah, that sucks  oh well, maybe the internet doesn't have all the information in the world 

[Haffner]

ah, that sucks  oh well, maybe the internet doesn't have all the information in the world 

Now that is wisdom!

[cx]

Ok, if you're going to say that American culture had some kind of effect on this troubled guy's mind, could you give us an example of anything specific? Violent video games maybe? Western movies? People he knew that were into guns and violence?
The thing is, this guy was completely non-social and almost never talked to anyone, so it's hard to think of this guy being influenced by any culture...
ah, that sucks  oh well, maybe the internet doesn't have all the information in the world 

As far as Cho being "influenced" by American culture: when he mentions "hedonists," "snobs," and "brats" I don't think he's talking about the people he knew in South Korea. He mentions his aversion to the "pretentious" and spoiled culture of his surroundings; he mentions the alcohol culture (perhaps which he experienced in college); he mentions his suffering being analogous to the 9/11 attacks; he makes an aggressive comment towards the current US president. As for the American media: Cho mentions John Mark Karr and Debra Lafave as antagonists towards his goal, and finally, Cho praises the Columbine shooters as inspiration. And by the way, Cho was not absolutely sealed in a vacuum. He had occasionally called his roommate, used AIM, and drank with his roommates at least once. And yes, he actually did go to (English) classes and lived in a dorm/suite with others for four years,  so I don't think it's fair to say Cho wasn't exposed to or influenced by any culture.

[greg]

As far as Cho being "influenced" by American culture: when he mentions "hedonists," "snobs," and "brats" I don't think he's talking about the people he knew in South Korea. He mentions his aversion to the "pretentious" and spoiled culture of his surroundings; he mentions the alcohol culture (perhaps which he experienced in college); he mentions his suffering being analogous to the 9/11 attacks; he makes an aggressive comment towards the current US president. As for the American media: Cho mentions John Mark Karr and Debra Lafave as antagonists towards his goal, and finally, Cho praises the Columbine shooters as inspiration. And by the way, Cho was not absolutely sealed in a vacuum. He had occasionally called his roommate, used AIM, and drank with his roommates at least once. And yes, he actually did go to (English) classes and lived in a dorm/suite with others for four years,  so I don't think it's fair to say Cho wasn't exposed to or influenced by any culture.

okay, thanks.

You know, you seem to have learned more stuff that I didn't even know about him  - probably some articles I haven't read online, huh?

I actually understand his aversion toward the alcohol/partying/wild drugs & sex culture of America (and really, it's everywhere, not just America). It's all just total immorality, if you're gonna have a party, have a party with all of that stuff. I can understand Cho's feelings towards this; but I don't think shooting people will help to change this at all, somehow  (what an idiot)

uggghh....... now I feel like I'm dissing almost every friend I've ever had, since everyone nowadays goes out to wild parties every once in awhile (except for me, of course)

as for the "pretentious and spoiled" culture, I wonder if he's talking about everyone or just people with lots of money? probably none, he probably didn't know what he was talking about himself 

[cx]

okay, thanks.

You know, you seem to have learned more stuff that I didn't even know about him  - probably some articles I haven't read online, huh?

Everything I know I read from a few articles and extracts from his manifesto (5 pages are released) and parts of his video. I'm no scholar on the matter 

as for the "pretentious and spoiled" culture, I wonder if he's talking about everyone or just people with lots of money? probably none, he probably didn't know what he was talking about himself 

Who knows. What we have to look at (which probably is not much less than what investigators are looking at) shows Cho making very vague to seemingly personal statements about his problems with society.

[head-case]

I find it absurd to discuss the supposed social implications of a person who evidently had a severe brain disorder.  Cultural cues may have influenced the mode of expression of his pathology, but they didn't cause it. 

If his parents had sent him to a Tibetan Monstary he would have ended up raking the monks with machine gun fire after making a demented video about how he did it for Chairman Mao.

Everything I know I read from a few articles and extracts from his manifesto (5 pages are released) and parts of his video. I'm no scholar on the matter 

Who knows. What we have to look at (which probably is not much less than what investigators are looking at) shows Cho making very vague to seemingly personal statements about his problems with society.

[cx]

If his parents had sent him to a Tibetan Monstary he would have ended up raking the monks with machine gun fire after making a demented video about how he did it for Chairman Mao.

That's just pure speculation. And I don't think this kid had a "severe brain disorder." Depression itself can lead one to do irrational things, and I don't consider depressed people having severe brain disorders. I guess it's all about where you draw the line.

[head-case]

That's just pure speculation. And I don't think this kid had a "severe brain disorder." Depression itself can lead one to do irrational things, and I don't consider depressed people having severe brain disorders. I guess it's all about where you draw the line.

And the pages and pages you've posted on the subject aren't speculation?  At least I have the virtue of being brief!

The kid's family reported that he had essentially refused to talk to anyone, including his parents and sister, from the age of 6.  His sister, who grew up in the same household and environment is a successful graduate of an ivy league university.  It is clear to me that this person's brain was defective.