pudge's Journal: Victims? Huh?

From NewsHour:

TOM BEARDEN, NewsHour Correspondent: This morning, after NBC News released chilling video messages from the gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, students on the campus of Virginia Tech grappled with their emotions.

SHONTE SOWARDS, Virginia Tech Student: We're angered by it. I mean, it's obvious that he was disturbed, and I don't think it's something that we need to hear over and over and over again. Yes, the video made it more real; yes, it made it easier for us to understand what kind of person we were dealing with. But he's not what's important about what happened. He's not even close to what's important about what happened.

GINNY KOONTZ, Virginia Tech Student: Yes, it has been mostly about the shooter up to now, but, you know, I think as soon as stories start to come out about the victims, it will overshadow the shooter.

I know, they lost their friends. I am not judging them.

But I am disagreeing with them.

Cho is what is important here. Not himself, but his story. If we understand that story better, we can perhaps prevent other atrocities in the future. We should have access to everything he sent to NBC, so we can understand that story better, and there is nothing to be angry at NBC about.

Of course, you do not have to care about Cho's story. No one is forcing you. But I really, really, couldn't care less to see stories about what great people the victims were. There are lots of great people in this world who die every day. I take it for granted that many, if not all, of the victims were wonderful people who did not deserve to die and who would have done great things if they had lived. I don't need to see a story on the news to tell me that.

And there is no conceivable way that stories about the victims will ever possibly overshadow the stories about the shooter. That's just delusional.

you're confusing "we" with "we"

[Bill Dog]

If we understand that story better, we can perhaps prevent other atrocities in the future. We should have access to everything he sent to NBC, so we can understand that story better, and there is nothing to be angry at NBC about.

Certainly his story needs to be studied, so that maybe other atrocities might be prevented. The sticking point is the "we". The "we" as in effectively our representatives in law enforcement and crime prevention, who are the proper authorities to analyze such things, yes. That furthe

Re:

[pudge]

Certainly his story needs to be studied, so that maybe other atrocities might be prevented. The sticking point is the "we". The "we" as in effectively our representatives in law enforcement and crime prevention, who are the proper authorities to analyze such things, yes. That furthers virtuous ends. The "we" as in everyone in general, no, that furthers destructive ends.

Nope. I could not disagree more. Most of these questions are going to be answered politically (or attempted to, anyway), and that means we the people should understand what is going on.

You're (over-)reacting to a false choice.

I am reacting to what was said.

It's irrelevant to spend airtime on how great the people who were gunned down were.

Right.

But it's sick to devote any coverage to his "story".

No, it's not.

We are not trained in deciphering or culling important bits from psychopath-speak

Speak for yourself, kemosabe.

so there's nothing to be gained by us being repeatedly presented with his kooky words, or having his image plastered on every station.

Even if it were true that we were not so trained, that doesn't mean there's no understanding to be gained. I am not "trained" in understanding people on Slashdot, yet I endeavor to do it often, and am often successful.

The only thing that's appropriate for the general public to focus on is the actions --independent of which misc. wacko-of-the-month perpetrated them -- and their tragic consequences. I'm not for much gun control, but discussions such as that and other public policy things are the only healthy phenomena that can result from this tragedy. The most unhealthy thing that's resulting is this cult of personality that NBC and the rest are striving to create, and that's why there's everything to be angry with NBC et al over.

I cannot agree with

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Well I'm happy for you I guess that you think you can interpret the delusional ramblings of a bonafide crazy person. Maybe you can channel the dead, too. But excepting your uncommon surprise expertise in this area, for the rest of us, saying that this guy's story and psyche or other extremely dark, evil matters should be intimately explored by the public in general, is like arguing we should have images of vaginas plastered all over ever station, all vaginas all the time, so that the public can make a gynec

Re:

[pudge]

Well I'm happy for you I guess that you think you can interpret the delusional ramblings of a bonafide crazy person.

I don't think I can, but I think that maybe I can. You never know. I'm pretty damned insightful. Besides, I have close relatives who have actual advanced degrees in psychology and sociology who certainly are trained to look at this stuff.

Maybe you can channel the dead, too.

So you believe psychiatry is voodoo?

But excepting your uncommon surprise expertise in this area

I did not state or imply that *I* have expertise. I said only that you should speak for yourself. Some people clearly do have expertise. And more to the point, expertise is not required to have reasonable opinions and thoughts.

for the rest of us, saying that this guy's story and psyche or other extremely dark, evil matters should be intimately explored by the public in general

I

Re:

[Bill Dog]

I'm pretty damned insightful.

Yes you are.

Besides, I have close relatives who have actual advanced degrees in psychology and sociology who certainly are trained to look at this stuff.

Do you think some of their learned expertise gets transferred to you via the blood line?

So you believe psychiatry is voodoo?

No, rather that it's like Biblical interpretation -- not everything has the meaning that an amateur interpreter would assume.

And more to the point, expertise is not required to have reasonable opinions and

Re:

[pudge]

Besides, I have close relatives who have actual advanced degrees in psychology and sociology who certainly are trained to look at this stuff.

Do you think some of their learned expertise gets transferred to you via the blood line?

Again, I never said I could understand it. I said only that you should only speak for yourself. This isn't about me, and I never implied it was.

So you believe psychiatry is voodoo?

No, rather that it's like Biblical interpretation -- not everything has the meaning that an amateur interpreter would assume.

Funny, I think that Biblical interpretation can be well-conducted by "amateurs." I am an amateur, and I think I am pretty good at it. My four semesters of Greek help, but still.

And more to the point, expertise is not required to have reasonable opinions and thoughts.

You must then live in some alternate universe, where opinions from people who don't know what they're talking about are called "reasonable".

You must come from some bizzarro world where "expertise" is required to have a reasonably good idea about things. I do not, and have never, and will never, believe in such a thing.

Re:

[multimed]

Certainly his story needs to be studied, so that maybe other atrocities might be prevented. The sticking point is the "we". The "we" as in effectively our representatives in law enforcement and crime prevention, who are the proper authorities to analyze such things, yes. That furthers virtuous ends. The "we" as in everyone in general, no, that furthers destructive ends.

You're just plain wrong. More often, when these things have been prevented, it's not the FBI, local authorities or school staff catching

Re:

[Bill Dog]

That's like saying we have to televise a bunch of images of people getting stabbed, so that people will know to run away if someone charges them brandishing a knife. Ludicrous. We had a creepy loner who talked to no one, stalked women, and wrote about killing people. The general population doesn't need an excursion to the dark side of the moonbat and a thorough tour of the area to know to be afraid. An instructor raised a flag over his writings, the campus police considered him dangerous, and all managing t

nope

[eglamkowski]

Of course, you do not have to care about Cho's story. No one is forcing you. But I really, really, couldn't care less to see stories about what great people the victims were.

The psychology of the killer is NOT the story here - people like him are extremely rare, maybe what, 1 in 5 billion? These kids of events only happen once every 5 or 10 ten years, the data points are too few and they typically kill themselves so you don't get a lot of data on each one when they do happen.

What's FAR, FAR, FAR more distu

Re:

[ces]

First of all Liviu Librescu wasn't the only one who "did something" during the shooting. His story simply is the most publicized.
Second I wouldn't presume to second guess those who were there. You never know how you are going to react until you are in a situation like this yourself.

Re:

[eglamkowski]

As Mark Steyn says [nationalreview.com]:
As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say "we don't know what we'd do under the same circumstances", we make cowardice the default position.

I'd prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

Re:

[pudge]

I don't think cowardice or passivity is made the default position by saying we don't know what we would do. We are just admitting ignorance of our selves: we know that we have never been in a situation like that, and admit that we therefore don't know how we would handle it if we were there. Who can possibly know what they would do in a tense situation they've never been in?

But I do agree passivity is the default position for many people, but it is not made so by admitting a truth about our own ignorance

Re:

[pudge]

The psychology of the killer is NOT the story here

Yes it is.

people like him are extremely rare, maybe what, 1 in 5 billion?

How would you know that unless you understand what caused him to do it? Sounds like question-begging to me.

These kids of events only happen once every 5 or 10 ten years

Depends on what you mean by (I assume you meant) "kinds." We have mass shootings much more often than that. Maybe you refer to the number killed? That could be more of a factor of luck than anything, as we've seevn various foiled attempts. The one thing that may set this event off more than anything is ... the intent and preparation of the killer.

the data points are too few and they typically kill themselves so you don't get a lot of data on each one when they do happen.

Right, and this one we have some data

Re:

[eglamkowski]

Let me just refer you to Mark Steyn on this topic:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZ jNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY [nationalreview.com]

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion