More V-Tech Shooter InfoFollow

I can believe that some people are born with a chemical imbalance that makes them behave in ways that are so outside of societal norms that we are at a loss to understand them. However, that doesn't give them any excuse to make decisions that adversely affect the rest of us and expect to get away with it.

Nexa

Damn me for still having a shred of faith in the mankind ;-P

Thats what try to explain, i saw a (dutch) documentary that i almost literally quoted.
The local TV station pulled it off the shelf after this incident.

And before you go folding aluminium, it was a documentary about "what it takes for a man to kill", albeit it said PTWS was about reliving horrific situations not about fear of being killed.



God has gone out of fashion where i live 50 years ago ;)

(i edit bc i no speakie good english)

Edited, Apr 19th 2007 9:57am by Sjans

You're right on most points, RedPhoenixxx. Though there's a lot of debate over whether you can really categorize morality so simply as "right" or "wrong" it is ultimately a uniform system of abstracts with the intent to acheive a goal. Wherein humans are concerned, our two main goals are to remain happy (our behavioristic ideal) and to remain living (can't be happy if you're dead, at least as we perceive [varies by religion]). In the sense that we share a common goal, and yes, that includes Cho, some morals are better than others. Can we absolutely say that as a whole we have not benefited more from Cho's actions than if he had not went on a shooting spree, all preceding events being the same? Not really, but we can say with near certainty that the 33 dead and the collaterally sad have been more steps back than forward in this goal.

This is typical cry-for-help behavior. Did Cho in any way directly repair the situation he claims to be so troubled by? No, and there's a good chance that his cry for help will go unanswered in the scheme of things. People are already well aware of our societal problems, and when there is some debate about what they are, rest assured that they discuss them rather than going on killing sprees. There are efforts everyday to do more than simply maintain the quality of our lives, but to improve it as well. The world doesn't need more cries for help, it needs more people who will actually make an effort to solve the problems. Cho's actions created problems. In that sense, I don't think he won and I think if you could ask him now yourself, he'd tell you that he lost.

You might be interested to look into Kohlberg's moral taxonomy theory (it's easy to find as it's general psychology). He makes the case that there are absolute morals, even if some of us disagree on what they are. We very often don't know what's best for ourselves afterall.

It all comes down to the golden rule, I suppose. "Treat others the way you want to be treated," just doesn't quite always cut it. We don't all want to be treated the same way. The trick is figuring out what "way" it is that we should all be treated. There is comfort though, in the idea that even if there are right and wrong ways, there is not always just one right way.

Edited, Apr 19th 2007 7:07am by Kachi

Not really, but we can say with near certainty that the 33 dead and the collaterally sad have been more steps back than forward in this goal.

Preposterous snivelery.


This is typical cry-for-help behavior.

Is it? Is it really? Killing a large number of people and then yourself is a cry for help? Interesting, Dr. Freud, how do you suppose old Cho thought he was going to get his cry answered considering he told no one of his plans until he carried them out.


Did Cho in any way directly repair the situation he claims to be so troubled by?

Yes. He killed people he felt had unfairly benefited from the inequalities of society. By killing them and himself he made the equals. He wins.



No, and there's a good chance that his cry for help will go unanswered in the scheme of things. People are already well aware of our societal problems, and when there is some debate about what they are, rest assured that they discuss them rather than going on killing sprees. There are efforts everyday to do more than simply maintain the quality of our lives, but to improve it as well. The world doesn't need more cries for help, it needs more people who will actually make an effort to solve the problems. Cho's actions created problems. In that sense, I don't think he won and I think if you could ask him now yourself, he'd tell you that he lost.

He absolutely wouldn't. Thanks for spouting pointless rote politically correct garbage though.


You might be interested to look into Kohlberg's moral taxonomy theory (it's easy to find as it's general psychology). He makes the case that there are absolute morals, even if some of us disagree on what they are. We very often don't know what's best for ourselves afterall.

It all comes down to the golden rule, I suppose. "Treat others the way you want to be treated," just doesn't quite always cut it. We don't all want to be treated the same way. The trick is figuring out what "way" it is that we should all be treated. There is comfort though, in the idea that even if there are right and wrong ways, there is not always just one right way.

Yeah, man, and what if we're really only *dreaming* we're alive and when we die, wait, wait, get this, man, we WAKE UP! Yeah.

Smoke another one.

I think morals are a good tool to help people in that respect. One of many, yes, one that can be twisted, for sure, but there's positives in understanding the impact and context of one's actions, and to analyse them within a wider "moral" framework.

Otherwise, it seems we're just peeing in the dark, if you know what I mean.

Don't be silly, the modern use of morals is by those not adhering to them using them to control those who do.

Mostly to Smash. I have nothing much new to add. Oh, and read this guy's plays. They're absolutely horrible :-P I mean, sure, violent, but mostly senseless. No character development, no plot, no rationality. I think it's clear that Cho was an aberration who had some kind of emotional imbalance or psychosis. At the very least he had pretty bad writing skills.


Meh, only if we're Norse. Isn't their whole philosophy "You only live as long as people remember you"? We'll remember the shooting for a while, that's true. So by that account, I suppose it's true. Still, it makes you wonder: if it's so easy to get guns and shoot people, is it really an accomplishment?


I doubt this, at least if the public at large heard about it. Because, you know, My Lai went over so well in Vietnam, and those soldiers who raped a teenager and killed her and her family it were big hits in Iraq. We might glorify violence in the US, but we try to make it righteous violence always against the greater evil, or at the very least write things off as collateral damage in pursuit of the greater good. Killing innocent bystanders because you're emo gets people riled up; especially when those bystanders are related to them.


I'll agree. By my view what he did was worthless, because I believe that being happy with yourself and life is the ultimate goal. I mean, he was miserable, so he could kill himself and relieve himself of his misery, which would be an increase in happiness, technically. But taking out 32 other people with you... how does that help? When you're dead, you don't feel anything; it's the ultimate escape from misery. Taking down the others WAS selfish, because on the whole, he made people more miserable.

When you want to spread your misery around by killing others and have no intention to live through it, it can't really be called anything other than selfish.


I'd say it gives him celebrity status, but not "hero" status. Do you think of pop stars as heroes? Maybe only Bono can reach that for selflessness (and ineffectiveness, but hey, who's counting?). Still, now we'll just be dragging Cho's name through the mud. He started a self-fulfilling prophecy: "Oh, the world is out to get me, so I get them first, and OH! SEE!? They're coming after me! I told you!!!"

And of course it's semantics, but the point is that different words do have different connotations. If you start saying all of the similar words are the same, you're purposely putting on blinders and ignoring what the society thinks; thereby distancing yourself from the premise that "society should glorify Cho's actions." If you don't look at American culture as a whole, with all the nuances and semantics, you're just BSing, as you aren't looking at society at all :)

Smash can remember about five of us by name, I'd wager.

Nexa

If you take the "Christain" morality, he totally lost. He was heading for Heaven, cos that's where the weak, and sad, and poorly treated people go. And instead of having eternal life, he's now got eternal damnation cos he killed. Acording to this system, he's "lost".

Not necessarily. It all depends on if he repented or not.


Was he a success at life, an accomplished person? Of course not. It takes a sense of morality and social constraint to develop successfully in society. He was a pitiful waste.


Thanks for the 8th grade health class party line, but really he was a massive success at life. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly arrive at any other opinion, really, other than wishful thinking and mindless parroting of fear driven rhetoric. "He was a waste" "He was evil" blah blah blah.

Pretty much what I expected. I wouldn't say he was evil, though. A chemical imbalance is a *****. Some people are broken in their arm, their stomach, their blood, and some in the head. It's just a body, after all. His just didn't work right, and it led him down a sorry path. I'm not sure all the healthcare in the world could have saved him. Some folks are just genetically fucked, and manage to overcome and thrive via medication, therapy, etc. Just not him.

Thanks for brightening my afternoon, sunshine.

Nexa

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_en_tv/virginia_tech_nbc

Most of all, you've got to hide it from the kids, coo coo cachoob.


NEW YORK - With a backlash developing against the media for airing sickening pictures from Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui, Fox News Channel said Thursday it would stop and other networks said they would severely limit their use.

NBC News was the recipient Wednesday of Cho's package of rambling, hate-filled video and written messages, with several pictures of him posing with a gun. Contents began airing on "Nightly News," and its rivals quickly used them, too.

Family members of victims canceled plans to appear on NBC's "Today" show Thursday because they "were very upset" with the network for showing the pictures, "Today" host Meredith Vieira said.

Virginia State Police Col. Steve Flaherty — who praised NBC Wednesday for coming to authorities first with the package — said Thursday he was disappointed with what the network showed.

"I just hate that a lot of people not used to seeing that type of image had to see it," he said.

You'd think it was a female breast or something.

People could...oh I dunno, turn off the TV and spend time with their families in their moment of grief?

To be fair, they did cancel their "Today Show" appearance. They'll be back once the lawsuit gets rolling full steam, though, have no fear.