Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

More V-Tech Shooter InfoFollow

#1 Apr 18 2007 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,492 posts
I decided to make it it's own thread...

VTech Gunman Mails Package Inbetween Shootings!!!!!

For those behind a firewall....

there are pictures/slidshow/video of him on the site....

Quote:
Gunman sent package to NBC News
‘I didn’t have to do this,’ says message mailed between shootings


MSNBC
Updated: 7 minutes ago
Sometime after he killed two people in a Virginia university dormitory but before he slaughtered 30 more in a classroom building Monday morning, Cho Seung-Hui mailed NBC News a large package, including photographs and videos, lamenting that “I didn’t have to do this.”

Cho, 23, a senior English major at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, killed 32 people in two attacks before taking his own life.

NBC News President Steve Capus said the network received the package, which was not addressed to a specific person, in Tuesday afternoon’s mail delivery, but it was not opened until Wednesday morning. The network immediately turned the materials over to FBI agents in New York.

The package included an 1,800-word manifesto-like statement diatribe in which he expresses rage, resentment and a desire to get even. The material is “hard-to-follow ... disturbing, very disturbing — very angry, profanity-laced,” Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.

The material does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does contain vague references.

“I didn’t have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no, I will no longer run. It’s not for me. For my children, for my brothers and sisters that you [molest] — I did it for them,” Cho says on one of the videos.

NBC cooperating with investigators
Capus said the network was cooperating with Virginia State Police and the FBI, which is assisting the state police.

The package bore a U.S. Postal Service stamp recording that it had been received at a Virginia post office at 9:01 a.m. ET Monday, about an hour and 45 minutes after Cho shot two people in the West Ambler Johnston residence hall on the Virginia Tech campus and shortly before Cho entered Norris Hall, where he killed 30 more people.

“We probably would have received the mail earlier had it not been that he had the wrong address and ZIP code,” Capus said.

Among the materials are 23 QuickTime video files showing Cho talking directly to the camera, Capus said. He does not name anyone specifically, but he mentions “hedonism” and Christianity, and he talks at length about his hatred of the wealthy.

“You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today,” Cho says. “But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.”

The production of the videos is uneven, with Cho’s voice so soft that at times it is hard to understand him. But they indicate that Cho had worked on the package for some time, because he not only “took the time to record the videos, but he also broke them down into snippets” that were embedded paragraph by paragraph into the main document, Capus said.

Chilling photographs
The package also includes 29 photographs. Cho looks like a normal, smiling college student in only the first two. In the rest, he presents a stern face; in 11, he aims handguns at the camera that are “consistent with what we’ve heard about the guns in this incident,” Capus said.

Other photographs show Cho holding a knife, and some show hollow-point bullets lined up on a table.

“This may be a very new, critical component of this investigation,” said Col. Steven Flaherty, superintendent of Virginia State Police, the lead agency investigating the shootings. “We’re in the process right now of attempting to analyze and evaluate its worth.”

Detention order issued
As early as 2005, police and school administrators were wrestling with what to do with Cho, who was accused of stalking two female students and was sent to a mental health facility after police obtained a temporary detention order.

The two women complained to campus police that Cho was contacting them with “annoying” telephone calls and e-mail messages in November and December 2005, campus Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.

Cho was referred to the university’s disciplinary system, but Flinchum said the woman declined to press charges, and the case apparently never reached a hearing.

However, after the second incident, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho’s, who was concerned that he might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.

To issue a detention order under Virginia law, a magistrate must find both that the subject is “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment” and that the subject is “an imminent danger to himself or others, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.”

According to a doctor’s report accompanying the order, which was obtained by NBC News, Cho was “depressed,” but “his insight and judgment are normal.” The doctor, a clinical psychologist, noted that Cho “denies suicidal ideations.”

Cho was released, said Dr. Harvey Barker, director of the health center.

“If a person is able, at that moment, to persuade a psychiatrist [and] the hospital treating team that they are OK to be released — I imagine sometimes that does happen,” Barker told NBC News.

Under the law, the magistrate could have issued a stronger detention order mandating inpatient treatment, but there was no indication Wednesday that such an order was ever entered. A spokesman for Carilion St. Albans told NBC News that he could not discuss Cho’s case because of patient confidentiality and privacy laws, but he said the hospital was cooperating with the investigation.

Otherwise, Flinchum said, there were no further police incidents involving Cho until the deadly shootings Monday, first in a young woman’s dormitory room and then at a classroom building across campus. Neither of the alleged stalking victims was among the victims Monday.


In addition to the 33 people confirmed dead, including the gunman, nine people remained in hospitals in stable condition, hospital authorities said.

#2 Apr 19 2007 at 12:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Cho wins. That's the reality no one's going to want to come to terms with, here. He felt, as a lot of people his age do, marginalized by a society who's standards for acceptance he couldn't possibly live up to and so he decided to make a statement and fight back. He traded his life for worldwide exposure of his message and his image and is getting exactly what he wanted.

On balance, in terms of achievement, his life will have been a greater success then any of ours.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Apr 19 2007 at 1:40 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

On balance, in terms of achievement, his life will have been a greater success then any of ours.




Is it so bad to die for what one believes? Not sure if your being sarcastic, but in a lot of ways, I agree with you.
#4 Apr 19 2007 at 2:04 AM Rating: Decent
I completely disagree.

If every emo kid decided to make their point by shooting 30 peole dead, there wouldn't be many people left to shoot.

He didn't "win" anything, nor did he achieve anything. He was a fUcked-up kid that got access to things that were far too powerful for his level of consciousness.

I don't know what US Universities are like, but feeling "marginalised" and an "outcast" is nothing new. every kid goes through this, and you jsut have to look at any pop song from the 60's onwards to see this.

There is no excuse, he didn't win, he didn't achieve anything, he didn't "make a point", he was a selfish mentally-ill individual that was too selfish to just take his own life.

One interesting point, though, was the fact he was medicated. Lots of these shootings are made by kids that are medicated, and either have stopped taking them, or react badly to them. And yet, no one is asking any questions about those drugs. If we find out he had a joint before killing everyone, you can bet every single person is going to come out and blame marijuana for it. Why is no one questionning the effect these drugs have on people's minds?

It seems much more dangerous than most of these illegal drugs.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#5 Apr 19 2007 at 2:31 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

He didn't "win" anything, nor did he achieve anything.


Of course he did. He made a massive impact on the world.


There is no excuse, he didn't win, he didn't achieve anything, he didn't "make a point", he was a selfish mentally-ill individual that was too selfish to just take his own life.


He didn't strike me as particularly selfish. Mostly just mentally broken and angry at the world. He decided what he believed in, then stood up and was willing to die for it. If he'd been in the military he'd be a giant hero.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting his actions or suggesting them to anyone else, but if you live in society where sacrifice and killing are glorified, it's dishonest to hold the Spartans at Thermopile as heroes and not Cho. Morally their actions were identical.



Edited, Apr 19th 2007 6:39am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Apr 19 2007 at 2:41 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
He made a massive impact on the world.


So did Pol Pot (best way I've found to avoir Godwin).

I see what you mean, but "win" doesn't seem right. Like a kid that strangles his sister because she got a better grade at school. Sure, he made his point, albeit in the most pointless, asteful and violent way possible. Doesn't equate to a "win" in my book. Well, I guess from a post-modernist point of view it does, but I hate post-modernism.

I do agree, in this way, that in his crazy little world, he probably feels he "won". Though I think it's even worse than terrorism, since there is no "greater purpose" in his actions. It won't change anything, and the next screwed-up kid that has a driving license will just do the same again.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 Apr 19 2007 at 2:42 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,293 posts
Is it me or does it all read like:

"I got my head dunked down the toilet one time to many and i couldnt get laid"

Quote:
On balance, in terms of achievement, his life will have been a greater success then any of ours.


At least i get laid.

I agree with RedPhoenixxx, sounds like a typical teenager to me, only this one flipped.
Someone should have told him to stick with the program, finish school, make a lot of money and the rest of youre desires will follow.

Quote:
It won't change anything, and the next screwed-up kid that has a driving license will just do the same again.


Hopefully for you guys this kind of expression doesnt become a trend.
Oh, wait...


Edited, Apr 19th 2007 6:51am by Sjans
#8 Apr 19 2007 at 2:48 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I see what you mean, but "win" doesn't seem right.


Of course it doesn't seem right, because we all have to pretend that this kids life would somehow have been better if he'd just tried to fit it and lived in misery until he was 70.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#9 Apr 19 2007 at 2:49 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
but if you live in society where sacrifice and killing are glorified, it's dishonest to hold the Spartans at Thermopile as heroes and not Cho. Morally their actions were identical.


If "sacrifice and killing are glorified" without any caveats, then I agree, but then this applies to every single nutcase that has killed people for whatever stupid reason is in their head.

I understand what you're saying, I think. That if "fighting and dying" for what you believe in is "glorified", then this kid did just that, and therefore it's not better or worse than when other people kill for that believe in.

But I really don't accept this moral equivalence. People that think that "fighting and dying for what you believe in" is always good, are idiots that can't tell their assholes from their earholes.

I didn't do philosophy at Uni, but isn't all this related to moral relativity?

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#10 Apr 19 2007 at 2:55 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:

Of course it doesn't seem right, because we all have to pretend that this kids life would somehow have been better if he'd just tried to fit it and lived in misery until he was 70.


Well, that's only true if we assume that we all live in a vaccum where nothing except our own personal psychosis matters. Which might be true in extremely individualistc societies, and it was certainly true in this kid's head.

I do agree that it can bea rgued that in his own crazy world he "won". but thena gain, his "own crazy world" is not intemporal, and could very well have been a temporary state of mind (as in the prescription drugs wearing off), in which case, he's lost even according to his standards.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#11 Apr 19 2007 at 3:24 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Well, that's only true if we assume that we all live in a vaccum where nothing except our own personal psychosis matters.


No, I don't think so. He decided to make a statement about what he thought of the world, and delivered it effectively. It won't change anything, of course, but it's a lot more significant then than millions of other kids who feel similarly who will do nothing and live relatively pointless lives.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Apr 19 2007 at 3:39 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
but it's a lot more significant then than millions of other kids who feel similarly who will do nothing and live relatively pointless lives.


I think all lives are utlimately "relatively pointless", even Cho's.

Sure, what he did had a much bigger immediate impact on the world that emo kids that just slit their wrists. But to me, "making an impact" without any qualifications, is just as meaningless as not making an impact at all. nothing will change. The only difference with other emo kids is that Cho's taken 30 other lives with his.

Does that make it more "significant"? I'm not sure. The impact he made is completely pointless, and will do nothing to address the issues that make kids feel that way.

My problem with this view is that it kinda makes everything the same. Like post-modernism, it tries to pretend that everything is equal, or of the same value, if it's equal in a vaccum. Well, fine, but we don't live in a vaccum. There are values, there are morals, and they are not all equal.

I do agree that, in his temporal state of mind at the time, in his world, he "won".

But, to me, that's just as meaningless as Varrus's posts. If the logic which leads to an act is wrong, the outcome is wrong.

Hmm, I'm trying to find a better way to explain what I think. If we accept that values and feelings are relative to the person that owns them, which I think they are, then what you say is right. But this statement can't exist in a vaccum, it has to be balanced by other "truths", such as the fact we live in a society, and that we mostly exist in relations to other people and our environment. In this respect, he clearly "lost", since he allowed his personal chemical imbalances to randomly destroy hundreds of lives. Which, as a society, we can't accept.

And I think that our actions must be judged according to both those criterias, ie our own relativism, an in relation to our society.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#13 Apr 19 2007 at 3:43 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

There are values, there are morals, and they are not all equal.


Right, yours are more important. I imagine he felt similarly :)

Can we agree there are no 'objective' morals?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Apr 19 2007 at 4:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:

And I think that our actions must be judged according to both those criterias, ie our own relativism, an in relation to our society.


Judged by our own relativism for our own sanity, but in relation to society is the bang for your buck route. Unless you're a hermit, it's been those morals and values that society deems fit to base norms and then laws on that are the important ones.

Don't expect me to make much sense today, I'm in a good mood.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#15 Apr 19 2007 at 4:04 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Right, yours are more important. I imagine he felt similarly :)


Of course he did! Though I don't think mine are more "important", I think mine are "better".

Quote:
Can we agree there are no 'objective' morals?


Yes. There are no "objective" morals, but there are morals which are "better" than others in relation to their purpose.

It's the same, morals don't exist in a vaccum. I'm no expert in "morality" nor in "ethics", but you have to draw a line somewhere. Yes, its arbitrary, subjective, and relative, but the alternative is a psychotic version of the law of jungle. Morals and values exist in relation to an environment, and for a purpose. We can debate what the purpose of morals are, but I would argue that they exist in order to give a sense of direction and workability to our lives, both as individuals, and as a specie. Some will disagree, and it's a matter of opinion. In that sense, i totally agree with the "there are no objective morals" statement, since it's a value of judgment.

However. What grates me with this way of thinking is that it's quite nihilistic, and relatively useless. Once we agree that nothing exists objectively, especially morals and values, we still haven't said much at all. And we certainly haven't contributed much to anything, except maybe breaking down dogmas and religion. But, in my opinion, thats not enough.

And I do think it's much more productive and healthy to realise that morals exist in relation to something else, ourselves and our environment, and that they therefore have different effects, impacts, and purposes. And that they therefore can be "better" or "worse" in realtion to these pruposes, impacts, and effects.

It's all subjective, I agree. But we live in a subjective world.

and I am a subjective girl.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#16 Apr 19 2007 at 4:09 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Yes, its arbitrary, subjective, and relative, but the alternative is a psychotic version of the law of jungle.


I'm reasonably sure that's what the Khmer Rouge said, too. :)


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Apr 19 2007 at 4:38 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that's what the Khmer Rouge said, too. :)


Yes, and they would've been right on that particular point. The alternative to "no morals" is a humanely-screwed-up version of the law of the jungle. No?

I agree it doesn't mean "morals" are always better. But, in a way, they are part of what makes us human, as opposed to purely instinctive.

I also agree that "morals" are what Pol Pot, Stalin and Cho used to justify themselves in their little heads. They are also what Ghandi and Jean Monnet used to justify their way of acting. I never said that morals were always good, or that their outcome was better than that of the psychotic-law-of-the-jungle.

I do think, though, that since everything is subjective, we should use subjectivity in discussing and applying morals. There is no real alternative anyway.

And finally, morals work within a system. If we define that system, the discussion is already much easier. I'm sure that under a humanist system, even the Khmer would agree that what they did was ultimately "immoral". Of course, they would argue that "humanist moral systems" are absurb and pointless, and that only "power and utilitarian morality" is what matters. But, at least, there's a discussion, and a framework.

Rejecting morality because of its subjectivity prevents us from establishing such a framewoork, and therefore having such a discussion.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#18 Apr 19 2007 at 4:46 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Rejecting morality because of its subjectivity prevents us from establishing such a framewoork, and therefore having such a discussion.


Not at all. Given the current prevailing system in the US, I'd say Cho's actions make him a hero, or if the connotation there is too unpalatable, a pop star. Given the current framework, the difference is largely a matter of semantics.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Apr 19 2007 at 5:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Not at all. Given the current prevailing system in the US, I'd say Cho's actions make him a hero, or if the connotation there is too unpalatable, a pop star. Given the current framework, the difference is largely a matter of semantics.


Given the current prevailing system in the US, I'd say Cho's actions make him a convenient excuse for the further erosion of civil liberties and a hightened watchdog, "your neighbors are all communists/terrorists/witches", freedom of speech is teh debil, mentality.

I'm eating brownies for breakfast, tee-hee.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#20 Apr 19 2007 at 5:02 AM Rating: Decent
Smasharoo wrote:
Not at all.


Yes! I don't get how you can have a discussion about what's right and wrong if you don't take at least a certain system of morality into account.

To put it another way, if you reject all forms of moral and values, because they are subjective, then you can't have a value or judgment on anything, since it'll always be subjective. Therefore, under the "all morality is pointless/wrong" theory, what Cho did was no "better" or "worse" than what you or I are doing at the moment. No?

Quote:
Given the current prevailing system in the US, I'd say Cho's actions make him a hero, or if the connotation there is too unpalatable, a pop star. Given the current framework, the difference is largely a matter of semantics.


Yes, but that's because the current moral system that's pervailing in the US at the moment is fUcked up. Not because every single system of morality would lead to this conclusion.

I'm sure there are moral systems, or frameworks, which don't value every kind of individual expression as higher than regard to your fellow man.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#21 Apr 19 2007 at 5:05 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,293 posts
I think the moral "thou shall not kill" can be considered objective.

Apart for it being benificial for the human race, normal humans have natural inhibitors that make it very (psychicly) uncomfortable to kill another human being.

Army (grunt) training is focused to break down that natural barrier by teaching the soldiers to kill without thinking and follow orders without thinking.
A gun significantly lowers this barrier, and this is used by teaching soldiers to fight reactivly in combat without to much active thinking. Point the gun at the target, watch the hands of the target, if it carries, squeeze. And train it ad neaseum in simulations (airsoft) till it becomes an automatism.

Once the soldiers have been in real combat are retired from the army and are civilians again, a few years later, think about what theyve done a lot of them still have problems with themselves. So even the army training has its flaws and isnt entirly effective at reprogramming the subjects natural ethics.
(Im targetting at war-trauma.)


Edited, Apr 19th 2007 9:20am by Sjans
#22 Apr 19 2007 at 5:13 AM Rating: Decent
Sjans wrote:
I think the moral "thou shall not kill" can be considered objective.


No, it's not.

It's neither "objective", nor "absolute".

That doesn't mean, however, that it's completely useless all the time.

Well, that's what I'm trying to argue.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#23 Apr 19 2007 at 5:18 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,293 posts
Quote:
It's neither "objective", nor "absolute".


I think if its naturally "pre-installed" in the human nature and it must first be undone for a man to kill another man, (or be a serious defect) its as objective and absolute as youre going to get.

Edited, Apr 19th 2007 9:19am by Sjans
#24 Apr 19 2007 at 5:19 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I think the moral "thou shall not kill" can be considered objective.


That's not even vaguely approaching true. There are virtually no workable moral systems that would hold that to be true.


Apart for it being benificial for the human race, normal humans have natural inhibitors that make it very (psychicly) uncomfortable to kill another human being.


I don't think it's very clear that it would be beneficial for the human race at all. Most of the consensus 'great things' that have been accomplished by mankind have been directly related to people killing one another.

As to it being psychicly uncomfortable, that's clearly false also. The after effects might be so, but the act itself isn't particularly inhibiting psychologically. Less so than many other things. Lots of people would have an easier time killing someone then having gay sex, for example.


Army (grunt) training is focused to break down that natural barrier by teaching the soldiers to kill without thinking and follow orders without thinking.
A gun significantly lowers this barrier, and this is used by teaching soldiers to fight reactivly in combat without to much active thinking. (point the gun at the target, watch the hands of the target, if it carries, squeeze)


No, you've got it wrong. Military training isn't about blind obedience to et people to kill, it's about that to get people to die. If war involved just pushing a button to kill others with no risk to ones self, the trainig wold take about 20 seconds.


Once the soldiers have been in real combat are retired from the army and are civilians again, a few years later, think about what theyve done a lot of them still have problems with themselves.
Im targetting at war-trauma.


Maybe, and that might be the focus of anecdotal stories of war, but really, the vast majority of PTSD cases and other war related psychological problems come not from guild about killing, but fear of dying.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#25 Apr 19 2007 at 5:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Sjans wrote:
Quote:
It's neither "objective", nor "absolute".


I think if its naturally "pre-baked" in the human system and it must first be undone for a man to kill another man, its as objective and absolute as youre going to get.


Do you mean indiscriminate killing? I suppose that is "prebaked" as it is in all animals really. However, we're no different than any other animal when it comes to killing for self defense, to win a mate, or to have that shiney thing that that guy over there has. That's all nurture, baby.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#26 Apr 19 2007 at 5:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

That's all nurture, baby.


No way, some people are just born evil. Eeeeeviiiilll. Like John Ritter. Chewed his way out of the womb at 4 months and ate his whole family.

True story.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 319 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (319)