jekyl_hyde

How can you say that with any confidence? We've had dipsticks doing crap like this for a long time, fortunately, some are so inept, they're caught before doing any actual harm. It's the cases when the perp isn't caught, or takes his/her own life that feeds the next one.

You don't have to be a religious person to understand that there is evil in this world... that some people are just plain evil... not a shred of goodness in them at all. This type of person feeds on this type of coverage, giving him/herself courage to enact their plan. Don't you find it odd, that in a manner of three weeks, coinciding with what was erroneously believed to be the end of the world (Mayans), also coinciding with three religious holidays (four if you want to include Ramaddan {sp?} which is when some of these started) that loonies come out and start trying to take lives along with their own? Not to mentioned the attempted attacks that were fortunately foiled.

Numinous

Because murderers aren't all the same nor they seek the exact same goal with their murders. I thought that was a given.

Define good and evil. Only then I can comment on this quote.

That's if the person actually feeds on the coverage. Again I say it isn't always the case.

You are assuming the person in this case influenced by that. I don't know if that's the case nor the news I read about it even allude to such. So, unless you have proof of such, that's pretty much a non-sequitur.

__________________

jekyl_hyde

Every single, individual murder... you're absolutely right. But there have been shootings involving high capacity rifles and pistols on a monthly basis this entire year. Including the cases where the authorities have apprehended individuals before the shooting spree could commence, the frequency has increased to almost a weekly basis since August (around the end of Ramadan if I'm not mistaken). Many behavioral psychologists believe that the purpose of these mass shootings is to induce fear on the population. Why else do it? Which leads to the next point.

C'mon num.... don't miss the forest because of the trees. The difference between good and evil is a general consensus here... you kill people, including yourself... you're an evil prick who is a coward.

Then why, pray tell, have about three people been arrest in TN, UT, and IN for threatening schools and churches since this tragedy occurred? Why is it, that the only place I can find about these instances where the tragedy was avoided because the local law enforcement was able to apprehend the culprit is at foxnews and not cnn, yahoo, or msn?

This individual case with this creep and this school, I honestly can't say, but why is that after this incident, the release of Dark Knight incident, and Wis. Sikh Temple incident... days after, copycat idiots were apprehended before their plan could be enacted?

Numinous

You're clearly not understanding the point I'm trying to make. You made a sweeping generalization and now, even after acknowledging it, you beg the question as if the sweeping generalization was totally true.

So I'll make myself pretty clear: many murderers share motivations, choice of weapons and even MO, but that doesn't mean you can put all murderers in the same bag if it's isn't committing murder itself.

... and you still didn't answer my question. I asked the definition because I find labeling people "evil" or "good" of very poor taste, bordering the nonsensical, considering how fickle the meaning of those terms can be.

I'd rather say that they enacted morally reprehensible actions, since they hurt the community (without any amelioration) by murdering innocent lives. That way the gravity of the situation is acknowledge without trying to rub out any past actions (be them morally positive or negative) due to that particular act.

Mind you, I'm not defending in any way the murderers, but treating them like evil entities (as many people do) can be perceived as glamorization by some of potential murderers.


For fuck's sake, I'm not denying that many murderers like the spotlight, I'm just saying not all of them do. Jesus fucking Christ, get a clue!

First, that's wrong because I don't watch the channel (directly) and I know of this. Second, you watch fox news as a genuine news outlet and not as a source of laughs?

... and how's that related to my response to your quote saying you found it significant that this happened in this doomsday/holiday season? Are you trying to pull a double non-sequitur?

__________________

xxMESTxx

I agree it would be easy to rationalize it away for the greater good, but sadly it doesn't exist right now. We're essentially fighting this war for power and oil. Any perceived threats at this point have long been exterminated.

I might not go as far as to say he enjoys it, but it doesn't seem like it bothers him. In his mind it's probably just a "cost" of war. In reality it's cold blooded mass murder. Like I said before, I'm sure he has no problem sleeping at night.

I agree.


Yeah, I get that. That's just a part of the reason why it seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I've never read that before. Thanks. Originally that quote was put on a picture of Morgan Freeman and claimed to be said by him. He denied making that quote so I don't know where it came from, just thought it was insightful.

__________________


"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -M. K. Gandhi

Mal

Perceived threats are still there and will never go away, because they're all in the mind. Legitimate threats do still exist to some extent, but the way to eliminate them is not by increasing American meddling in the Middle East. I forget what exactly we were originally talking about here, but I'm pretty sure we agree for the most part: America needs to GTFO out of the Middle East.


I don't think it's fair to assume that Obama has no trouble sleeping at night. What I do think is a fair assumption is that there is a shit ton of stress for him to deal with. I mean, look at the effect of 4 years of Presidency:


That's a lot of aging for 4 years.


I think calling it hypocrisy is a stretch, since this doesn't really fit the actual definition. People are just naturally more concerned with their own "tribe" than others'.


Yeah, I think that quote's been circulating in chain emails for a good 6-7 years. "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity." -Abraham Lincoln

Vanity

Read this shit. Seriously. Every time you talk about politics, especially IR shit, it makes me not want to read anything you say. Ever.

__________________
My nerves are bad to-night.
Yes, bad.

Stay with me.

Speak to me.
Why do you never speak?

Speak.
What are you thinking of?

What thinking?
What?

I never know what you are thinking.

Think.

xxMESTxx

That's a bit harsh. I read your link. Not sure what it has to relate to from what you quoted. It's pretty obvious we're the dominant power, and we've more than asserted that fact by now.

Your post is a little vague, and apparently to you, mine seems overwhelmingly stupid. I'm a rational guy, I'd be more than willing to discuss whatever flaws you see in my opinions, I take that shit into consideration, and my opinions can always be changed when new facts that I otherwise wouldn't have known are learned. Or, you know, you can stop reading my posts too. Whichever you prefer.

__________________


"Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever." -M. K. Gandhi