I never thought something like this could happen here... :(
Fatal shooting at Finnish school
Students were taken to a hastily organised crisis centre
At least eight people have been killed and several others injured in a shooting at a school in southern Finland, police have said.
The incident took place in Tuusula, some 50km (30 miles) north of the capital Helsinki.
Finnish media reported that the shots had been fired by an 18-year-old man at the Jokela secondary school.
Finnish police say the gunman shot himself and is among those being treated in hospital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7082795.stm
It baffles me, this kind of madness. Eight people dead, young lives, barely on their way.
This is making me unbelievely sad....
:'(
The shooting appeared to have been planned out in graphic videos posted on Internet file-sharing site YouTube. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html)
Sad day for Finns and especially for the people living in Tuusula.
Dreadful.
Here's the Helsingin Sanomat (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/BREAKING+NEWS+Eight+killed+in+school+shooting+in+Jokela+north+of+Helsinki+gunman+in+critical+condition/1135231614979) take on the situation.
Sadly and incidentally, an article (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/COMMENTARY+Live+by+the+sword+die+by+the+knife/1135231594059) on the "brutality" of Finns was published just a little over a week ago.
Latest American cultural export: Columbine and Virginia Tech.
The whole of Finland is shocked at the moment, and personally, it feels really difficult to send the kids to school tomorrow morning.
that really sucks :(
obviously, all these school shooters have mental problems..... i wonder if medication would've helped?
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 07, 2007, 02:37:07 PM
that really sucks :(
obviously, all these school shooters have mental problems..... i wonder if medication would've helped?
That is a gross oversimplification.
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 07, 2007, 02:37:07 PM
obviously, all these school shooters have mental problems..... i wonder if medication would've helped?
Obviously, they have extreme mental problems. Would medication help? Of course they would have to be diagnosed first and then receive proper treatment. When should the State step in? And who decides?
Quote from: longears on November 07, 2007, 02:48:05 PM
Obviously, they have extreme mental problems. Would medication help? Of course they would have to be diagnosed first and then receive proper treatment. When should the State step in? And who decides?
that's where it gets messy. It's just one of those things you really can't do much about.... if only students had a force field-like shield they could use, they'd be safe. I think someone should invent that.
Awful and disturbing.
Hmm...
Nothing to say, now.
May they rest in peace, and may perhaps he (the shooter) find now the peace he couldn't find in life. It's sad, and so unnecessary, though. Truly.
That's what happen when you're a fame whore and want to be remembered, but have no genius whatsoever. A very easy and effective way to find one's way to immortality among humans, sadly.
And the more the media talks about such events, the more it happens. It is now at the reach of anybody to be famous.
Love and prayers to the victims and their families.
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? >:(
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on November 07, 2007, 10:22:43 AM
Latest American cultural export: Columbine and Virginia Tech.
Mass shootings at schools by disaffected wackos are not a uniquely American phenomenon: Ottawa, Canada, 1975; Montreal, Canada, 1989; Montreal, Canada, 1992; Dunblane, Scotland, 1996; Sanaa, Yemen, 1997; Erfurt, Germany, 2002; Melbourne, Australia, 2002; Carmen de Patagones, Argentina, 2004; Montreal, Canada, 2006.
The camel's hump is in the tent and it's only a matter of time before we're all in deep doo-doo.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 01:31:26 PM
The camel's hump is in the tent and it's only a matter of time before we're all in deep doo-doo.
yeah, until they find out how to get bombs
My god, this is terrible. Finland...I wouldn't really have expected such a thing...very sad to see this has become a worldwide phenomenon. My thoughts are with the young Finns affected by this awful tragedy.
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 08, 2007, 01:41:49 PM
yeah, until they find out how to get bombs
There's been plenty of that, too, Greg, but usually by politically motivated wackos.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 02:28:33 PM
There's been plenty of that, too, Greg, but usually by politically motivated wackos.
or, more precisely, there will be suicide bombings at schools instead of shootings.....
possibly.... probably to them the idea of a shootout seems like it'd be funner
Why do they do it?
Mad at the world,mentally ill,mad at mom and dad,teacher?Drugs,bad diet,bad genetics,video games,heavy metal?
Quote from: Muriel on November 08, 2007, 02:58:26 PM
Why do they do it?
Mad at the world,mentally ill,mad at mom and dad,teacher?Drugs,bad diet,bad genetics,video games,heavy metal?
Poor video games, always dragged into these debates...
Mental health, I'd reckon, emotional frustration, the need to escape; freedom, in a very existential sort of way, but perverse. Did that cover it, to a basic extent? ;)
Quote from: Muriel on November 08, 2007, 02:58:26 PM
Why do they do it?
Mad at the world,mentally ill,mad at mom and dad,teacher?Drugs,bad diet,bad genetics,video games,heavy metal?
i honestly think mentally ill has more to do with it than anything. He said he was "full of anger" and loved it. I think he had the capacity to feel way more anger than most other people, and it translates into his tastes in music, video games, etc.
i think in the times online article it was wondering if he was bullied, among the other questions. Really, come on... does he look like someone who would be bullied? :P
in 9th grade i had a friend who was sorta crazy at times, but she was a girl so i think she handled it in a different way. Once she said she took a knife out on a kid on the bus and got expelled or suspended from school.... so even though she was fun, pretty, and loved to talk yu-gi-oh with me, she scared me at times! ;D
So then I try to imagine her having a fit and going on a school shooting spree and i really can't imagine that..... hm, i guess since she's a girl.
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 08, 2007, 02:34:41 PM
probably to them the idea of a shootout seems like it'd be funner
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--like setting standards and saying "no." My generation mostly refused to give their children the benefits of discipline, and instead tried to pass the responsibilities of parenting onto the schools--then after subverting the educational mission, they scared the schools with lawsuits into abandoning the discipline mission, too.
Quote from: Muriel on November 08, 2007, 02:58:26 PM
Why do they do it?
Mad at the world,mentally ill,mad at mom and dad,teacher?Drugs,bad diet,bad genetics,video games,heavy metal?
I think you're right, Muriel. The first series--
Mad at the world,mentally ill,mad at mom and dad,teacher--pretty well describes a normal phase in adolescence. The second--
Drugs,bad diet,bad genetics,video games,heavy metal--may signify conditions that escalate ordinary acting out from temper tantrums to mass murder.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 03:21:16 PM
I think you're right, Muriel. The first series--Mad at the world,mentally ill,mad at mom and dad,teacher--pretty well describes a normal phase in adolescence.
you mean except for the mentally ill part, right?
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 03:14:04 PM
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--like setting standards and saying "no." My generation mostly refused to give their children the benefits of discipline, and instead tried to pass the responsibilities of parenting onto the schools--then after subverting the educational mission, they scared the schools with lawsuits into abandoning the discipline mission, too.
I blame the 19th amendment.
Frankly, i think i can understand what goes on in their little twisted minds when the 'normal' popular kids do things like this:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/October/theworld_October924.xml§ion=theworld
And virtually get away with it.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 03:14:04 PM
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--like setting standards and saying "no." My generation mostly refused to give their children the benefits of discipline, and instead tried to pass the responsibilities of parenting onto the schools--then after subverting the educational mission, they scared the schools with lawsuits into abandoning the discipline mission, too.
Are you saying there were lawsuits against the schools, because teachers set standards and said "no" to the children? Or does the concept of "discipline mission" include physical punishment, too?
I find this discussion becoming skewed to a point where it will soon very likely become redundant.
So in any case, count me out of it, while I [censored, out of respect to this forum], in full Clockwork Orange fashion. Later, then!
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 08, 2007, 03:23:05 PM
you mean except for the mentally ill part, right?
Sorry, Greg, but adolescence is a protracted period of sporadic mental illness bought about by massive infusions of powerful drugs known as hormones. It's perfectly normal at this time of life. Once you get through it, you will never again suffer the violent mood swings, the depths of despair, the obsessiveness, or the hateful rages that punctuate this developmental stage of life--that is, not unless you really are mentally ill and don't grow out of it after your hormones settle down!
Personally, I think it would have been very helpful at this time of life had I known to expect this--then perhaps I wouldn't have taken my own feelings so seriously, but would have known they were not to be trusted any more than the heartfelt advice of a hopeless drunk. In my case, I sublimated much of that craziness into sports. Perhaps that's why there's a strong tradition of encouraging adolescent males to participate in sport--it provides a healthy channel for the craziness.
Among the disaffected losers who go murdering their classmates, how many were active in athletica?
Quote from: matti on November 08, 2007, 03:45:07 PM
Are you saying there were lawsuits against the schools, because teachers set standards and said "no" to the children? Or does the concept of "discipline mission" include physical punishment, too?
Yes. No. I'm amazed at the number of people who confuse discipline with punishment.
Quote from: Renfield on November 08, 2007, 03:01:05 PM
Poor video games, always dragged into these debates...
Quote from: Renfield on November 08, 2007, 03:48:35 PM
I find this discussion becoming skewed to a point where it will soon very likely become redundant.
So in any case, count me out of it, while I [censored, out of respect to this forum], in full Clockwork Orange fashion. Later, then!
Let me guess--you're a video game playing adolescent? (with apologies for the redundancy)
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 03:56:20 PM
Yes. No. I'm amazed at the number of people who confuse discipline with punishment.
Good. Then I'm with you. I also concur with your statement that physical exercise is an excellent way to deal with extra testosterone.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 08, 2007, 03:31:37 PM
I blame the 19th amendment.
Frankly, i think i can understand what goes on in their little twisted minds when the 'normal' popular kids do things like this:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/October/theworld_October924.xml§ion=theworld
And virtually get away with it.
There's nothing remotely normal about such behavior. Failure to bring swift, severe, and certain punishment--and to require restitution, insofar as possible--is sadly all too common in our decadent civilization and only encourages more of the same and worse. Of course, things like this would probably never happen in 'civilized' society if we'd just swat the camel's nose whenever it pokes under the tent. In time even a dumb camel will learn where the boundaries are. Of course, if we don't defend our boundaries, we don't really have any, do we?
The 19th Amendment, eh? Methinks there may be more at work here than mere cheeky tomfoolery--but what? Care to say?
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 04:00:13 PM
Let me guess--you're a video game playing adolescent? (with apologies for the redundancy)
You beat me to the admittedly redundant clarification. Yes, indeed. And I count influences from video games that are not mindless shooting galleries as an important part of my cultural and mental upbringing, involved with them as I have been since a very young age, without shooting up a single school so far, or even a nursery.
And I also fail to see any sort of taste in skewing a potentially productive discussion, so as for it to (typically) involve this silly war with a a genre of entertainment and/or artistic expression (ever played or known games such as Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, the old adventure games of the Day of the Tentacle, Money Island variety, etc.?), in a matter very much related to social frustration and inherent mental difficulties.
Furthermore, your penultimate post evokes this wonderfully old-fashioned concept of sports as an outlet for said frustration, which I do acknowledge as a view, while failing to take into account that sporting activities could be argued to promote violence every bit as much as a "plain ol' video game", of the variety you are apparently referring to (while assuming this contains the whole of computer and/or console gaming, which is a blatant oversimplification).
Even more so, what is to say "male" video games such as those implied by your vociferous rejection of them may not function as equivalent outlets of "chemical frustration" to sports: are sports anything more than social bonding games themselves, after all?
Of course, I would be a fool not to acknowledge the extent video game
realism can change the "rules of engagement", from the players' perspective and in terms of their involvement; but again, does not an equivalent apply in the intense physical competition encouraged by sports, and the amount of social pressure this exercises on all involved? Is not the sports-fan's enthusiasm and engrossment a very tangible equivalent, I wonder?
The bottom line is, might I have any sort of concrete evidence as to why I should consider this discussion anything more than an appropriate outlet for all sides involved to voice out very much the "species" of social frustration that can, extrapolated to the extreme (with apologies for the redundancy), lead to so much grief, as was once again shown to be the case?
If nothing else, I am not aware of having made any dim-witted over-generalised statements regarding any social (or age) group myself. So, even if such statements concerning adolescents have a physiological basis, and are thus not what I would necessarily call "dim-witted", why should I make a point of concerning myself with their proponents in this context?
(Since either human psychology ends up assumed to be less complex than the circuitry of an old radio, or a whole lot of "mystical" concepts such as "hormone imbalance" are invoked, in a manner that supposes human beings are somehow living in chemical stasis for all their lives, but their adolescence; not to mention it assumes that homo sapiens is a race inherently unable to control it natural urges, against which I would argue in principle, and in practice.)
I hope this is a more comprehensive response, to explain my above attitude. And I feel that one might argue with others (including me) seriously and cogently, or not argue at all. Hence, I am stepping out of this so-called argument, on principle, until any sort of actual argument, supported by evidence or demonstrated through logic, has been voiced. Fair enough? :)
Boy that's a raw nerve!
You might try looking at this issue sometime when the wound has healed. Until then, asking you to step back and examine it dispassionately is like asking a smoker not to do it in public.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 04:48:37 PM
Boy that's a raw nerve!
You might try looking at this issue sometime when the wound has healed. Until then, asking you to step back and examine it dispassionately is like asking a smoker not to do it in public.
It's a raw nerve because I've had this issue brought up again and again (and again) since the time I was playing Warcraft II in the late 90's. And given that I'm currently 19, you could call it a childhood "pet peeve" of sorts. However, I will repeat (or rather clarify) that it is not the specific stance that riles me to this extent: it is the way certain people (including yourself, for better or for worse) tend to present it, as magisterially as any known mathematical theorem.
And the beginning of most social issues of this variety, including those that lead to unfortunate cases like the above, is exactly this sort of tendency to only step back and look over the "nots", rather than the "why nots",
as well. Otherwise, the argument could be described as nigh-equally lopsided in approach as the stereotypical viewpoint you are attacking yourself, and
that is why I said I'm staying out of the argument.
Still, I'm not about to shoot anyone over my views, nor theirs. But I would definitely like to discuss something in an even field, rather than a skewed one.
Last but not least, I despise oversimplification, and the post I was commenting on fairly reeked of it, from my perspective. Whereas mine was simply over-the-top. Is
that fair enough? :)
Quote from: Renfield on November 08, 2007, 05:07:36 PM
it is not the specific stance that riles me to this extent: it is the way certain people (including yourself, for better or for worse) tend to present it, as magisterially as any known mathematical theorem. ...Last but not least, I despise oversimplification, and the post I was commenting on fairly reeked of it, from my perspective. Whereas mine was simply over-the-top. Is that fair enough? :)
Nope. Your response is still tellingly disproportionate and off target.
Quote from: Siedler on November 08, 2007, 01:07:07 PM
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.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 05:59:45 PM
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...
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on November 08, 2007, 06:01:58 PM
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.
Quote from: longears on November 08, 2007, 03:53:58 PM
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....
Quote from: Renfield on November 08, 2007, 06:37:59 PM
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! :D
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.
Quote from: Siedler on November 09, 2007, 03:31:43 AM
But remember this is The Times - a respected broadsheet newspaper (like The NYT).
Well, it is currently owned by Rupert Murdoch... 0:)
Quote from: longears on November 09, 2007, 04:14:04 PM
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. :)
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 (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.
Quote from: longears on November 10, 2007, 10:45:02 AM
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.
Quote from: G...R...E...G... on November 07, 2007, 02:37:07 PM
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...
Quote from: Conservationist on November 13, 2007, 05:14:50 PM
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.