8 dead in Finland school shooting

[PerfectWagnerite]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article2828084.ece?Submitted=true
I'm shocked of the level of journalism on this article, I thought The Times was a quality newspaper? 

Why would you say that? It isn't the most well-written article I have ever read but definitely beats papers like the New York Post and NY Daily News. But the authors conjecture that somehow the isolation of living in Finland contributed to the mental destruction of the culprit seems premature.

[Renfield]

Nope.  Your response is still tellingly disproportionate and off target.

While yours is terribly well-supported by rock-solid arguments, is it? One again: I am not making a fuss over the issue itself, be it suicide bombers, suicide shooters, or psychopaths. I am making a fuss over the ease with which it is connected to a thousand other things, under the pretense of a "fibre" of intellectual superiority I have yet to see demonstrated by fact.

I am not saying you (or anyone above) is wrong to offer their views, nor that I particularly care for whether that is done bluntly, or "softly". But attempting to bring down the full ethical weight imposed by the apparent decadence of modern society into this issue, and "bashing" concepts left and right without proper explanation of why they are so problematic is bad argumentation, in my book.

Whereas I am responding disproportionately, but not even attempting to claim I am addressing the issue of what is causing such attacks. I am only arguing against the bad (rather, non-existent) argumentation I see inevitably(?) cropping up in this thread, because I am not one of those people who consider trading aphorisms an argument, or a discussion of any sort.


If, all in all, you wish to discuss with me (or anyone) this entire issue, I gladly invite you to do so in a cogent manner, which I've no doubt you can, and to which I might respond in kind. Otherwise, it's not worth it, in my opinion, and so I exercise my right to opt out of the argument altogether. And I invite anyone else to do the same, when I am the one being less than cogent in what is otherwise a serious argument.

Then again, I'll also note that a real discussion on an issue like the present is like one of the other numerous "religion/aesthetics/social values" posts that crop up left and right, in that it can only in an ideal case be facilitated within the context of a classical music forum. Realism, for decency's sake! I think you are at least as aware as I am that if such issues were as simple as to be easily resolvable in this context, they'd have been given solid answers quite a while ago...

[Siedler]

Why would you say that? It isn't the most well-written article I have ever read but definitely beats papers like the New York Post and NY Daily News. But the authors conjecture that somehow the isolation of living in Finland contributed to the mental destruction of the culprit seems premature.

But remember this is The Times - a respected broadsheet newspaper (like The NYT). Aren't the NY Post and Daily News tabloids? The aricle is ignorant and sensationalist, based on myths and stereotypes. Some might call it even racist. This kind of trash journalism belongs to the tabloid press.

[greg]

Among the disaffected losers who go murdering their classmates, how many were active in athletica?

that's a pretty good point, it probably would've helped them....

[mahlertitan]

While yours is terribly well-supported by rock-solid arguments, is it? One again: I am not making a fuss over the issue itself, be it suicide bombers, suicide shooters, or psychopaths. I am making a fuss over the ease with which it is connected to a thousand other things, under the pretense of a "fibre" of intellectual superiority I have yet to see demonstrated by fact.

I am not saying you (or anyone above) is wrong to offer their views, nor that I particularly care for whether that is done bluntly, or "softly". But attempting to bring down the full ethical weight imposed by the apparent decadence of modern society into this issue, and "bashing" concepts left and right without proper explanation of why they are so problematic is bad argumentation, in my book.

Whereas I am responding disproportionately, but not even attempting to claim I am addressing the issue of what is causing such attacks. I am only arguing against the bad (rather, non-existent) argumentation I see inevitably(?) cropping up in this thread, because I am not one of those people who consider trading aphorisms an argument, or a discussion of any sort.


If, all in all, you wish to discuss with me (or anyone) this entire issue, I gladly invite you to do so in a cogent manner, which I've no doubt you can, and to which I might respond in kind. Otherwise, it's not worth it, in my opinion, and so I exercise my right to opt out of the argument altogether. And I invite anyone else to do the same, when I am the one being less than cogent in what is otherwise a serious argument.

Then again, I'll also note that a real discussion on an issue like the present is like one of the other numerous "religion/aesthetics/social values" posts that crop up left and right, in that it can only in an ideal case be facilitated within the context of a classical music forum. Realism, for decency's sake! I think you are at least as aware as I am that if such issues were as simple as to be easily resolvable in this context, they'd have been given solid answers quite a while ago...

well said! Renfield! 

[longears]

well said! Renfield! 

?

[mahlertitan]

?

[longears]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what it is that he said, since you understand and approve of it.  All I could make out of it is that he's good and I'm bad.

[Lethevich]

But remember this is The Times - a respected broadsheet newspaper (like The NYT).

Well, it is currently owned by Rupert Murdoch... 0:)

[Renfield]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what it is that he said, since you understand and approve of it.  All I could make out of it is that he's good and I'm bad.

Or that the view I expressed in this issue is (though really by no means) "simply" over-the-top, while the one you expressed has "inapparent" logic behind it. You do have a point to make, and I think I can see what it is, but I'd appreciate it if you could present it in a somewhat more cogent manner, with fewer (to no) aphorisms.

And not because it's not an argument otherwise, but because it's not a clear argument, which is my preferred type, and the only one I trust to get me through a serious discussion, versus a "generalistic" hodgepodge of views being thrown around, as often happens in "discussions" like those I referred to, at the end of my previous post.

A sentiment which Gestalt Ballistic Jugular Gerrymandering Zoo Warden above, to continue my running joke, seems to share.

[longears]

Renfield—

You have been reading an awful lot into my brief (and very clear) statement above, and have attacked me as if I had said something like:  “Video games cause these schoolroom shootings.  Kids who play them are all potential mass murderers.  Such games should be banned and the kids who like them should be forced to watch Wayne Newton videos until they repent their evil ways!  So there!  Na na na na naaah na!"

What I actually said is: “For the rise in this sort of crap I blame (among others) the morally bankrupt Hollywood hypocrites who glamorize gun violence, the conscienceless press whose reportage only fosters more of the kind, and the graphic game makers who profit by selling ever more violent first-person shooters to adolescent boys.  I also blame a decadent West, grown too soft and spineless to stand up for its core values, and a generation too self-involved to love their own children by doing the hard things good parenting demands….”

I credit most here with the capacity to read my words, if interested, and to examine the implications for themselves.  The implicit claim regarding gaming in the above statement can be fairly characterized as:  "Chronic exposure to ‘entertainment’ in which ‘heroes’ run about killing everyone in sight—especially first person shooter video games—may be a contributing factor when mentally unstable, morally deficient, and inadequately supervised juvenile wackos act out in real-life shooting sprees.”

Note that I doubt anyone in his right mind would claim that violent video gaming causes such behavior, no more than anyone in his right mind would claim that guns cause such behavior, or American culture, or testosterone, or twinkies.  But might such games be a contributing factor in pushing certain weak-minded wussies over the edge?  Anecdotal evidence, common sense, and some studies suggest some likelihood:

• The assholes who perpetrated the Columbine massacre were chronic FPS players, one so obsessed with Doom that he created and distributed his own levels for the game.
• 
  The punk who shot up the school in Paducah was an obsessive Doom and Quake player.
• 
  The loser who shot up Dawson college was a fan of the game “Super Columbine Massacre.”
• 
  The asshole who shot up the school in Erfurt was a chronic gamer who loved Counterstrike.

As for research into the matter, see, for instance, http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

I don’t think it should have been necessary for me to spell out the foregoing--however, you seem like an earnest young man who’s at least making a stab in the direction of understanding another point of view.  I applaud you for pursuing an education--which one hopes will include training in critical thinking skills—and suggest that if you are even half as bright as you think you are, then you should begin actively seeking to learn the virtue of humility, and should learn to restrain yourself from jumping to conclusions.  Arrogance, prejudice, and hasty judgment are all significant stumbling blocks to learning.

In parting, let me remind you that the asshole who shot 47 people in Austin in 1966 had never seen a video game; that the lunatic 16-year-old who shot 11 in San Diego in 1979 was a girl; that the fruitcake who went after 33 in Köln with a flamethrower in 1964 was 42 years old; that the jerk who attacked 29 kindergarteners in Suzhou (PRC) in 2004 used a knife;  that the scumbags responsible for killing hundreds in Beslan were ‘politically’ motivated; and that such anecdotal evidence suggests that the contributing factors to such violence are as varied as they are universal.

[Renfield]

the contributing factors to such violence are as varied as they are universal.

That precisely sums up my own view of the situation this topic concerns, and the reason I so vehemently oppose sensationalism like what you were not implying, after all. Apart from this, I have nothing to contest in the points made through your post above, lucid, cogent, and supported by evidence as it most assuredly was, finally not in possibility alone, but also in effect.

(And I'm guessing here that what the second part of my signature alludes to is perhaps not wholly unfamiliar to you. Correct me if I'm wrong.)


I will however, and with your permission, make two notes:

1) You are correct, or rather I agree with your assessment concerning humility. But I would like to point out that my presumptiveness (and thus arrogance) was more in assuming that you expressed your view while unready to back it up, than it was in my not realising that view existed; possible worlds are something I deal with regularly, since none too recently.

And the reason I'm offering this alternative view is that part of my background involves rigorous observation of human behaviour, and so would be concurrent with a hastiness to "tag and dismiss": a vice, after all, which I fully acknowledge, and am always working to curb every bit as a matter of principle as being a nuisance about clarity in argument.

2) "Arrogance, prejudice, and hasty judgment are all significant stumbling blocks to learning" indeed, but that does not only apply to a certain age group. Much as I agree with your assessment, you are almost mirroring my own certainty, in your own assertions; or so it has struck me since a few posts back, and I would be dishonest not to acknowledge it.

Thank you for your reply.

[Conservationist]

obviously, all these school shooters have mental problems..... i wonder if medication would've helped?

Yeah, it's not like our society has any problems at all, or our political systems are totally impotent at fixing them.

It's nice and warm here, under the sand, where my head is hiding...

[greg]

Yeah, it's not like our society has any problems at all, or our political systems are totally impotent at fixing them.

It's nice and warm here, under the sand, where my head is hiding...

sure, they have problems, but society has always had problems. And there has always been the mentally insane, so it might be hard to connect the action of one person to problems of society  that affects millions.