12 killed, 50 wounded at Aurora movie theater

[Alice-Bee]

I think that's one of the photos they found in his AFF profile, which has garnered some attention because he visited the site in the days before the shooting and it includes the line: "Will you visit me in prison?" He seemed to be advertising his intentions, if not trying to make himself into some kind of sexy bad boy. I'm not entirely convinced he isn't attempting to attain some sort of f-cked up cult status.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/21/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-sex-profile-website/

whoa..

 

[Digger]

Even more reason why in an ideal world, the media would refer to him as an anonymous coward and only talk about the victims as 3-dimensional people with life stories worthy of interest.

I hate that some media outlets are referring to him as The Batman Shooter... which I'm sure he loves.

Makes it sound like he should be in the cast of Chicago or something.

 

[Alice-Bee]

See this is why Marilyn Manson came up with his stage name.
The media can put someone like Marilyn Monroe and Charles Manson on the cover of Life(I believe it was) Magazine. Celebritising murderers...and yes Digger I agree, if he hears about it he will be very happy with that nickname.

 

[Dedalus]

Even more reason why in an ideal world, the media would refer to him as an anonymous coward and only talk about the victims as 3-dimensional people with life stories worthy of interest.

Agreed. So many people seem to have a need for knowledge about the shooter or are (as CNN quips) 'in search of answers.' There are no ******* answers. People are dead and there will never be an answer that could make anyone feel any better about it - or prevent it in the future.

 

[Ansciess]

People are dead and there will never be an answer that could make anyone feel any better about it - or prevent it in the future.

Disagree. Just because nothing in actuality will be done about it doesn't mean something couldn't be done to help prevent these things in the future.

 

[Sevenseas]

Agreed. So many people seem to have a need for knowledge about the shooter or are (as CNN quips) 'in search of answers.' There are no ****ing answers. People are dead and there will never be an answer that could make anyone feel any better about it - or prevent it in the future.

Well I think even if there were some answers to be found, about why the coward did what he did, and what societal improvements could reduce the risk of similar things happening in the future, finding those answers should be the business of police officers, psychiatrists, prison officials and/or any other such people who first-hand and personally can question and observe the coward and study his background.

Neither tv news show anchors, nor random losers talking about his life story on the Internet, nor random people reading about it in the paper, can "learn" from his life in order to prevent future crimes. So any info about his background, his personality, his political ideologies, etc. etc. that is recycled endlessly in the media mainly just serves the audience's need for excitement and not any real practical purpose.

 

[Dedalus]

Disagree. Just because nothing in actuality will be done about it doesn't mean something couldn't be done to help prevent these things in the future.

My basis for that comment is - I highly doubt there will ever be a time in the future when there aren't going to be instances like this one. Whether or not any instances are 'prevented' would be pretty difficult to determine.

 

[Ansciess]

My basis for that comment is - I highly doubt there will ever be a time in the future when there aren't going to be instances like this one. Whether or not any instances are 'prevented' would be pretty difficult to determine.

Well there are certainly things that could be done in the US to prevent people (ill or not) from getting ahold of assault rifles with huge magazines and shooting lots of people at a school, theater, grocery store parking lot, or the like. If at some point the incidences go down or stop completely, then I think the prevention will have been successful. Doing nothing (as we're likely going to do) will mean more of the same soon enough, there's zero doubt about that.

I see (not necessarily from you) a lot of impotent hand wringing - "what is there to do?" - when there's plenty to do.

 

[K-II]

Well, "I don't know why I feel angry when someone takes my stuff" is pretty much what I mean: your feeling angry or resentful towards someone for their actions has no explanation (is irrational), under the hypothetical where you don't believe in any kind of 'ought'- or 'should'-rules.

As for, "why would you feel anything about the rule itself", feelings that are associated with moral rules make them far more effective in influencing behavior (one's own and others'). Feelings of remorse in having broken a moral rule encourage one to not break it again; feeling angry towards others' violations of moral rules makes one more likely to interfere and make sure the rules are followed, etc. That's probably why those feelings are cultivated as a part of growing up in society, and maybe also why through evolution we've become to have them.

Well, yes, the emotion is sort of... 'before reason'. Subconscious is probably the proper word. It's much the same as feeling happiness or... anything really. Some probably gave my distant ancestors some kind of evolutionary advantage, and others just haven't been enough hindrance to be removed from the genepool since their beginning.

While I can reason 'why I feel so-and-so emotion' in the sense that I trace it back to its origin (like being angry in response to being caused to feel other negative things), I can't force myself to feel anger (or so) about something that I might decide, through reason, it would be better if nobody ever did. For instance if I made a rule that people shouldn't steal from me because it's unpleasant, then extended that to 'people shouldn't steal' in the hope that others might agree and it could become a sort of accepted standard and therefore less likely to happen, I wouldn't feel anything about someone being a thief unless they stole from me (or someone I liked) and triggered the same feeling that existed before the rule. Breaking the rule in general wouldn't inspire feeling.

In fact, I find this discussion strangely relevant to my past, as I've had friends who were thieves. Perhaps this is why I didn't feel any sort of resentment to them.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

As far as I know there isn't any danger of this happening as long as I haven't committed any serious crimes as a result. Without anything to incriminate myself of, I don't see any reason not to speak openly about it.

where i'm from, if 2 doctors believe that you pose a danger to yourself or others, they'll lock you up whether you did anything yet or not.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

Agreed. So many people seem to have a need for knowledge about the shooter or are (as CNN quips) 'in search of answers.' There are no ****ing answers. People are dead and there will never be an answer that could make anyone feel any better about it - or prevent it in the future.

it's relatively normal and healthy for people to want to try and make sense of an horrific or disturbing event, to understand... it might not make anybody feel happier about what happened, but having a clearer picture of exactly what was behind events coming to the conclusion that they did, and what is happening as we move forward and try to come to terms with events... that sort of understanding can be very helpful to people.

with information and understanding, they can try to accept and maybe even forgive a little easier, grieve a little more completely, there is less doubt and uncertainty, a little more security is felt as a result of communities coming together in difficult times, by people sharing their feelings, and having relatively reliable information means less creative conclusion-making happens, less stress exists from imagined or otherwise irrational fears playing on people's anxious minds.

knowledge and education can make a HUGE difference, too. you can predict the possibility of certain events happening pretty well, if you know the behaviours to look out for.

for example: severely depressed people who go on to commit suicide are frequently reported by friends and family-members as having seemed dramatically more upbeat and happy in the days leading to their death (because they've made a decision, they know it's going to be over- they feel strangely relieved)... they often undertake 'tying up loose ends' type behaviours like telling friends and family-members how much they mean to them, giving people gifts, giving away possessions, etc. this happens so frequently that it's been provided as 'red flag' information for friends and families utilising depressive support groups for some time now.

if a friend of mine had known about these behaviours and what they meant, she would have rung alarm bells prior to her friends suicide, and he might still be here today- his expression of real unhappiness might have been taken more seriously, he could have received real help, and he certainly wouldn't have been found dead in the way that he was, by the person he was. a different ending may have been similarly tragic, but it may not have been. positive change could have come about.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

I think that's one of the photos they found in his AFF profile, which has garnered some attention because he visited the site in the days before the shooting and it includes the line: "Will you visit me in prison?" He seemed to be advertising his intentions, if not trying to make himself into some kind of sexy bad boy. I'm not entirely convinced he isn't attempting to attain some sort of f-cked up cult status.

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/21/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-sex-profile-website/

sometimes a comment like that is much more of a cry for help, than it is macho bragging. the same could be said about his sending his shrink his diaries, his possible attempt to 'test run' his wired apartment on a building resident prior to the cinema shooting (luring them upstairs with loud music, leaving the door unlatched), etc. instead of 'bragging', it could be much more about handing us clear clues, so we could step in and stop him, because he wanted to be stopped, but he couldn't stop himself.

from experience, i've found that even when everything was sliding away from me and i felt like i was totally losing my marbles on a grand scale, i would have moments of rather distinct clarity, during which i'd feel very uneasy about the process and know that something was horribly wrong with my thought processes and feelings, on a sort of gut level, and during those moments i'd try in lots of different subtle, and less subtle ways to signal to others that i really did need help- even when i couldn't bring myself to point blank actually ask for it outright.... maybe even BECAUSE i couldn't bring myself to.

and i wasn't really even THAT nuts, as far as i'm aware... just a little unhinged.

Well I think even if there were some answers to be found, about why the coward did what he did, and what societal improvements could reduce the risk of similar things happening in the future, finding those answers should be the business of police officers, psychiatrists, prison officials and/or any other such people who first-hand and personally can question and observe the coward and study his background.

Neither tv news show anchors, nor random losers talking about his life story on the Internet, nor random people reading about it in the paper, can "learn" from his life in order to prevent future crimes. So any info about his background, his personality, his political ideologies, etc. etc. that is recycled endlessly in the media mainly just serves the audience's need for excitement and not any real practical purpose.

random people learn lots of little things that do change their understanding of the world- both profoundly and subtly, all of the time.

you'd be surprised.

i've learned something about you that i find pretty insightful, from your quoted post, for example.

 

[K-II]

where i'm from, if 2 doctors believe that you pose a danger to yourself or others, they'll lock you up whether you did anything yet or not.

I think this has a bit more specific criteria than 'would not have an emotional difficulty causing harm to someone', though I'm not where you are so I'll probably be okay in either case.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

I think this has a bit more specific criteria than 'would not have an emotional difficulty causing harm to someone', though I'm not where you are so I'll probably be okay in either case.

'being able to rationalise violence towards another human' does not constitute 'not having a functioning sense of morality or any kind of active ethical conscience'.

members of the military rationalise violence towards others on a daily basis. so do martial artists. they're not all total psychopaths.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

every single one of us likely could and would kill another human, under the 'right' circumstances, whether we'd like to admit it or not.

 

[K-II]

Wouldn't you only need to rationalise it if there was some kind of emotional barrier to doing it?

 

[das_nut]

where i'm from, if 2 doctors believe that you pose a danger to yourself or others, they'll lock you up whether you did anything yet or not.

Getting those who commit criminal offenses long term mental healthcare treatment does seem to be a problem around here.

 

[Sevenseas]

Well, yes, the emotion is sort of... 'before reason'. Subconscious is probably the proper word.

I don't think 'subconscious' is the proper word for normal emotions one feels and is very much conscious of.

For instance if I made a rule that people shouldn't steal from me because it's unpleasant, then extended that to 'people shouldn't steal' in the hope that others might agree and it could become a sort of accepted standard and therefore less likely to happen, I wouldn't feel anything about someone being a thief unless they stole from me (or someone I liked) and triggered the same feeling that existed before the rule. Breaking the rule in general wouldn't inspire feeling.

Perhaps that would just fall under what I said about narcissists' moral rules: they react to certain unfair or harmful actions with anger and resentment, which reveals a belief in rules whether recognized as such or not, but only when those actions threaten their own interests, which are the only things they truly identify with; which means that the rules they believe in tend only to be self-concerned moral rules.

Personally, I don't have a strong emotional response to stealing in general, or reading about cases of stealing, but of course I have moral beliefs about the issue.

random people learn lots of little things that do change their understanding of the world- both profoundly and subtly, all of the time.
you'd be surprised.

That's true: random people who are extremely narcissistic and who also crave a lot of fame and notoriety, learn from the media that when you destroy enough human lives, you get a cool name attached to you, like the aforementioned Batman killer, your political ideologies will be heard and discussed, your face will be all over the Internet, you will be talked about and talked about years from now, you will be in the minds of people all over the world. You learn that when you mutate your own personal pain into something destructive enough, it will be recognized, everywhere. And that your name will be on people's lips.

 

[K-II]

I don't think 'subconscious' is the proper word for normal emotions one feels and is very much conscious of.

I thought that at first, but I'm not entirely sure. It isn't a process that occurs obviously in my mind like thinking about something: I experience the feeling, and from there I have to think back in steps until I find a reason for it. So it would go from 'anger with so-and-so' to 'because they took my money' - 'it can be used to obtain x, which I use for y, which causes/prevents feelings of z' - 'these are unpleasant, and so-and-so is the cause of this'. But it can only be reduced so far. Some things just have a certain feeling attached, for reasons beyond my understanding. So I can be conscious of some of the process, but it doesn't actually happen with my awareness inherently, and it stems from something I can't seem to access. For all I know there may not even be a word for that.

Perhaps that would just fall under what I said about narcissists' moral rules: they react to certain unfair or harmful actions with anger and resentment, which reveals a belief in rules whether recognized as such or not, but only when those actions threaten their own interests, which are the only things they truly identify with; which means that the rules they believe in tend only to be self-concerned moral rules.

The nature of the rules at all is still something confusing to me. Is it a thing people decide on? Or an observation of what they dislike? I'm not sure how one could believe something without recognizing it. Maybe I'm thinking of a different kind of believing, but for me to believe something I need to accept it; it needs to make sense to me.

Personally, I don't have a strong emotional response to stealing in general, or reading about cases of stealing, but of course I have moral beliefs about the issue.

What makes you find a thing right or wrong then if not feeling? Or is it just... not as right or wrong (can something even be different degrees of right, or is it just right and varying degrees of wrong?) depending on the strength of the emotion?

That's true: random people who are extremely narcissistic and who also crave a lot of fame and notoriety, learn from the media that when you destroy enough human lives, you get a cool name attached to you, like the aforementioned Batman killer, your political ideologies will be heard and discussed, your face will be all over the Internet, you will be talked about and talked about years from now, you will be in the minds of people all over the world. You learn that when you mutate your own personal pain into something destructive enough, it will be recognized, everywhere. And that your name will be on people's lips.

lol. 'The Batman Killer' actually sounds like a really stupid name to me somehow. It reminds me of reading that they nearly called the guy from Starwars 'Luke Starkiller'. Though maybe it's because I tend to think of things fairly literally...

 

[Sevenseas]

The nature of the rules at all is still something confusing to me. Is it a thing people decide on? Or an observation of what they dislike? I'm not sure how one could believe something without recognizing it. Maybe I'm thinking of a different kind of believing, but for me to believe something I need to accept it; it needs to make sense to me.

I'm not sure how one can believe something without acknowledging it either, although I provided possible explanations earlier, such as advocating a weird position just for the sake of doing so, or of not understanding language, etc. To me, an angry, resentful response towards X, because X committed some act, already communicates a "should" or "ought"-rule. If such a rule is not in mind or not meant to be communicated, other emotional responses would make more sense, such as feeling angry but angry in general and not towards any agent; or feeling general sadness.

What makes you find a thing right or wrong then if not feeling? Or is it just... not as right or wrong (can something even be different degrees of right, or is it just right and varying degrees of wrong?) depending on the strength of the emotion?

The word 'feeling' is, at least in moral contexts but probably in many others, a misleading term, since feelings often tend to be seen as somehow separated from e.g. beliefs and "reason" -- reason vs. emotion, logic vs. feeling. Whereas in reality, a representation of some fact or situation (a "belief") is associated with a particularly colored way of experiencing that representation (a "feeling"), and maybe with the commitment to a certain action because of this representation (an "intention"), and maybe others. All these elements form a unified whole. And a moral view/belief/value I hold is an example of such a whole. It is not just a "feeling", nor is it a factual belief, nor is it just a commitment to action. It is all those things, and probably more than the sum of those elements.

And no, I wouldn't say the strength of my emotion determines how wrong I think something is. If I'm not personally invested in a murder taking place in Germany, I might have less of an emotional response to reading about that murder, than I have when someone cuts in line when I'm buying a ticket. That in no way means I think the act of murdering someone is less wrong than the act of cutting in line: quite the opposite.