Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Va Tech Shooting

Canada has a comperatively lower population, with less people per area inhabiting a place in that barren wasteland.
Click to expand...

Unless you're referring to northern Canada, I will kindly thank you to not insult Canada in the future.

In fact, in your cold, logical head, you obviously fail to grasp what emotions can do to a person.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary! I know exactly what emotions do to a person. I also know that emotions cause people to misjudge situations and make bad decisions. Emotions are part of what cause the needless finger-pointing America is prone to.

How many people here, in their grief over the victims, have taken a single moment to ask what was going on in the shooter's head? How many people here know or even care about his perspective? There are things being discovered about him that I'm surprised nobody's posted yet. For instance, the (at this point, only suspected) shooter was apparently an English student, who was referred to the counsellors for his rather "disturbing" creative writing. It was very, very terrible, and as the person who gave me the link put it, "If he hadn't done this, his next appearance would have been in 'Would You Like Fries With That?' at the Golden Arches Theatre." It can be found here if you're curious (caution: harsh content, but relevant to the discussion at hand).

I certainly don't see him as a victim, but similarly I don't see him simply as some inhuman monster whose only significance was shooting people. He was a human being, just like the rest of us. To not respect that is to belittle the tragedy to the point of meaninglessness.

In most cases it would be, but in this case The families and friends need to be comforted. It might not sound like justice, but if you have a love one who was murderd you know what it fells like.
Click to expand...

That's because it's not "justice" to do so. It may be the proper course of action to comfort the friends/family of the victims, but there isn't any "justice" to be had in it. Misusing words like "justice" cheapens them and obfuscates their actual meaning when they're later used properly.

I didn't say that justice was served when the shooter committed suicide. I simply said that there was nobody to bring to justice. The only "justice" I see being served would be if gun control was tightened to the point where you couldn't simply go out, buy a Glock, and shoot people, as the suspect Cho Seung-Hui did.
 
bullados said:
I can just smell the Jack Thompson machine revving up for another go at the video game industry...
Click to expand...
I believe he already said something as soon as it became national news...

$10 says FOX News interviewed him, like always...
 
Marril said:
Unless you're referring to northern Canada, I will kindly thank you to not insult Canada in the future.
Click to expand...

What, it's not a barren wasteland? Your view of America seems to be that it is a culture of socially-inept people who go around killing each other and pointing fingers, what's wrong with Canada being a wasteland?

Marril said:
Quite the contrary! I know exactly what emotions do to a person. I also know that emotions cause people to misjudge situations and make bad decisions. Emotions are part of what cause the needless finger-pointing America is prone to.
Click to expand...

Ok, if you do understand emotions then, you'll know that people/victims will want justice for this incident. I mean, have you considered that emotions do not necessarily always cause people to misjudge situations and stuff? You obviously only identify the emotions that you think best serve your position, instead of looking at the larger picture and other alternatives that are possible. Heck, emotions are not always part of the what causes finger-pointing; once again, you fail to see what else may cause this.

Also, perhaps you might want to try quoting all of what I said, instead of specific parts to manipulate what I'm responding to originally in the first place?

Marril said:
How many people here, in their grief over the victims, have taken a single moment to ask what was going on in the shooter's head? How many people here know or even care about his perspective? There are things being discovered about him that I'm surprised nobody's posted yet. For instance, the (at this point, only suspected) shooter was apparently an English student, who was referred to the counsellors for his rather "disturbing" creative writing. It was very, very terrible, and as the person who gave me the link put it, "If he hadn't done this, his next appearance would have been in 'Would You Like Fries With That?' at the Golden Arches Theatre." It can be found here if you're curious (caution: harsh content, but relevant to the discussion at hand).

I certainly don't see him as a victim, but similarly I don't see him simply as some inhuman monster whose only significance was shooting people. He was a human being, just like the rest of us. To not respect that is to belittle the tragedy to the point of meaninglessness.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I'm sure plenty of people out there would like to know what is going on in the shooter's head, and his perspectives. Perhaps by discovering what caused his specific angsts, troubles, and whatever other issues he had might lead into prevention of similar crimes? Also, so what if he choses to write about odd, even disturbing subjects? He is perfectly allowed to. And yet, from his disturbing writings, a person can clearly tell that perhaps he had issues, from which someone can even go as so far as to suggest that he had some psychological disorder. Obviously though, these counsellors he saw were quacks that didn't see potential psychological disorders, unless the killer fed them a pretty good lie.

Marril said:
That's because it's not "justice" to do so. It may be the proper course of action to comfort the friends/family of the victims, but there isn't any "justice" to be had in it. Misusing words like "justice" cheapens them and obfuscates their actual meaning when they're later used properly.

I didn't say that justice was served when the shooter committed suicide. I simply said that there was nobody to bring to justice. The only "justice" I see being served would be if gun control was tightened to the point where you couldn't simply go out, buy a Glock, and shoot people, as the suspect Cho Seung-Hui did.
Click to expand...

You obviously have some odd ideas of what justice is. Justice has plently of situations it can be applicable in. Comforting the victims can be seen as a form of justice. Obviously they can't bring in the killer to face justice himself, seeing as how he decided to cheat himself of that. But, whatever else can be done in the aftermath of the incident can be seen as a form of justice. Just not your weird, specific-only ideas of justice apparently.
 
What, it's not a barren wasteland? Your view of America seems to be that it is a culture of socially-inept people who go around killing each other and pointing fingers, what's wrong with Canada being a wasteland?
Click to expand...

I'd say the fact that I don't view America as being that way is what's wrong with Canada being a wasteland. Now, I'm going to ask you again to stop insulting me and my country in overall 'Gym debate. It's improper form and reflects poorly upon you.

Bashing Marril may be socially acceptable, but that doesn't make it right.

I mean, have you considered that emotions do not necessarily always cause people to misjudge situations and stuff?
Click to expand...

This is true, but I really don't think you're going to think with a clear head while incensed by the news that a friend or loved one has been killed by a gunman on campus.

And yet, from his disturbing writings, a person can clearly tell that perhaps he had issues
Click to expand...

Not the least of which was an issue called "sucking at writing."

Obviously though, these counsellors he saw were quacks that didn't see potential psychological disorders, unless the killer fed them a pretty good lie.
Click to expand...

I'm having a time trying to determine if you were being sarcastic with the "quacks" comment. It could easily go either way, from my prespective on your writing. Thus, I'll take what I deem the more likely of the two scenarios and assume it was sarcasm.

The problem with simply writing Cho Seung-Hui off to the counsellors was that, frankly, he may not have wanted help. This doesn't seem like it's saying much, but it is important to remember that you can't effectively help someone who doesn't want it. Obviously, the full gravity of the situation wasn't known until too late, but this raises the question of what can be done to predict when someone's truly a danger, and when they're simply a disgruntled but harmless student.

One thing is painfully obvious, though. Seung Cho had problems that needed help, and he didn't get it. This places some degree of blame on the system, even though blame for the incident is still squarely on the shooter.

You obviously have some odd ideas of what justice is. Justice has plently of situations it can be applicable in. Comforting the victims can be seen as a form of justice.
Click to expand...

This isn't a place for "justice." You're talking about upholding some moral righteousness of comforting families of victims, but this form of "justice" is merely you putting a fancy veneer on the only humane course of action.

Unless of course you mean that you have to do that kind of thing to do the event justice. The idea of doing a school shooting justice is... actually pretty amusing. Twisted, but amusing nonetheless.
 
Marril said:
That's because it's not "justice" to do so. It may be the proper course of action to comfort the friends/family of the victims, but there isn't any "justice" to be had in it. Misusing words like "justice" cheapens them and obfuscates their actual meaning when they're later used properly.

I didn't say that justice was served when the shooter committed suicide. I simply said that there was nobody to bring to justice. The only "justice" I see being served would be if gun control was tightened to the point where you couldn't simply go out, buy a Glock, and shoot people, as the suspect Cho Seung-Hui did.
Click to expand...

I was not misusing the word justice. Justice means a variety of things. Have you ever lost a loved one? I have. I know that comforting families and friends who lost a loved one, can make them feel a whole lot better than before. If that is not justice, I certainly do not know what justice is.
 
Have you ever lost a loved one?
Click to expand...

Just so people don't get the wrong impression of me from this thread, yes, I have lost a loved one. I just wouldn't call being comforted "justice."

For the United States I hope the Republicans finally do something about gun control.
Click to expand...

The problem is a certain amendment that so many Republicans hold so dearly.
 
No Big big Money from the gun companies and the NRA keeps floating into the Repulican party so they hide behind the second amendment. So its the Money that they hold so dearly. Next election I hope its life that they hold so dearly.
 
I don't mean to belittle this tragedy in the least with the following comment (I think we can all agree that this is an awful incident), but I'm impressed that in our 231 year history, this is the absolute worst thing we've seen happen at a school. Do you know what terrible things one human can be directly capable of? Morbid curiosity compels me to speculate how a cold, calculating sociopath could "only" murder 32 innocent people.

While it's the proper thing to show remorse for the lost lives, the students should also appreciate the fact that the massacre wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. If not for people Liviu Librescu, this kid could easily have taken out fifty or more.

Oh, off topic, do you guys who dislike the second amendment understand WHY we have it, and how naive it is to hate it? Incidents like V-Tech are the outliers we are forced to cope with if it means directly saving thousands of people from death each year. Also, if it's illegal to own a firearm, then all the people who own them will either be the government agents that control your lives, or the criminals who KNOW it's illegal and still do it.
 
tons of people knew this kid was a problem, tons of people knew what COULD happen, but so FEW did anything. so much discussion about such a simple reason of "why"
 
Oh, off topic, do you guys who dislike the second amendment understand WHY we have it, and how naive it is to hate it? Incidents like V-Tech are the outliers we are forced to cope with if it means directly saving thousands of people from death each year. Also, if it's illegal to own a firearm, then all the people who own them will either be the government agents that control your lives, or the criminals who KNOW it's illegal and still do it.
Click to expand...

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

The problem is that the second amendment was written for a society that no longer exists. Does America truly need a bunch of gun-toting rednecks calling themselves a militia that's needed for national security? Look at all the first-world nations that get by just fine and dandy without an amendment that puts guns in the hands of anyone who wants one, and you'll find that the answer to that question is "no."

It's not naive to object to the second amentment. It's naive to assume that the society that brought such a thing into existence is the same society you have now.
 
he could have bought a gun on the streets of DC. the gun is a non-issue. if you want a gun, you can get a gun. how do gang members get guns? cause they can.
 
Marril said:
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

The problem is that the second amendment was written for a society that no longer exists. Does America truly need a bunch of gun-toting rednecks calling themselves a militia that's needed for national security? Look at all the first-world nations that get by just fine and dandy without an amendment that puts guns in the hands of anyone who wants one, and you'll find that the answer to that question is "no."

It's not naive to object to the second amentment. It's naive to assume that the society that brought such a thing into existence is the same society you have now.
Click to expand...

Yes, guns are still a necessity imo. Now obviously, they can fall into the wrong hands, but there are plenty of responsible gun owners also. Not every one of them are rednecks.

And don't get me started on national security and such here; our "President", if you can call him that, has already screwed it up enough here.
 
And a bunch of civilians hiding behind an outdated constitutional amendment that calls for a "militia" to ensure national security is going to do a better job or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top