talkpolitics | (no subject)

My only source for news is the Internet. Currently, most of the media outlets (websites) I'd visit in the event of a big news story have a photograph of the Arizona shooter's face on their main pages (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report have it up; MSNBC and NPR don't).

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Let's say we lack empirical evidence to answer the question. Is it not enough that making criminals famous may incentivize others to commit like crimes for media outlets to consider, you know, not making criminals famous?

How do decision makers in media justify making criminals famous? A journalist's duty is to provide the public information that the public is interested in?

What I'm saying is— cover the story, just do it in a tactful manner. This makes me consider why I'm able to see the Virgina Tech shooter's face in my mind's eye, or Tim McVeigh's, or Charles Manson's. Maybe there's a parallel dimension someplace with a society that doesn't repeatedly and consistently make insane people who do big bad things famous.

I'm sure many, maybe most, will disagree with my premise, but I'm looking at the portrait of that guy right now— at his crazy Manson eyes and his smirk, and I can't help but think that he appreciates and enjoys the attention, as McVeigh did, I'm sure, and Manson did and does. So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Therefore,

(A) anti-gov't attitudes --> (B) wanting to kill someone in gov't --> (C) wanting to kill Giffords

I return to your initial statement:

"None of [the anti-gov't attitudes] is why he targeted her."

If A causes B causes C, then absolutely A along with B is why he targeted her. It doesn't fit in the category of primary reasons perhaps but it absolutely fits in the category of why he did what he did.

I return to your complaint about how people treat other people:

"Why do people continue to make up stuff in their heads that people don't say"

People aren't making stuff up in their heads. People like you are not communicating effectively.

If A causes B causes C, then absolutely A along with B is why he targeted her.

We're obviously having a failure of language here. B did not cause C. At least it wasn't the only thing causing C. Since it was not the sole cause for C, it can not be said that A caused C, only that it was an influence on C.

It doesn't fit in the category of primary reasons perhaps but it absolutely fits in the category of why he did what he did.

Yes, it is not a primary reason. That's what I said, but you interpreted that to mean that I was claiming it wasn't an influence at all.

Yes, you exactly created in your head a meaning that I did not say.

Primary reason was not part of the language you used when this conversation began. You used that language later on in the conversation. And are now claiming you always used it. You're ridiculous.

"Targeted" implies primary reason. If I take my gun and target a deer with it, I'm not targeting that deer because I'm hungry, even though that may be why I'm out hunting, but because that's the deer that's closest to me at the moment.

Why a person targets someone or something is only because of the most immediate, the most present cause.

A person's actions can not be explained by any prior action that is not the most immediate, the most present.

The world according to gunslnger. I'll try to keep that in mind in future conversations.

Once again, you should know that those two statements are not equivalent.

You assert:

- Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes are why Loughner decided to "kill someone gov't related"
- However, Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes are not why Loughner targeted Giffords.

I assert:

- IF Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes are not why Loughner targeted Giffords, THEN "A person's actions [e.g. Loughner's targeting] can not be explained by any prior action [e.g. Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes] that is not the most immediate, the most present [e.g. Loughner's disdain for Giffords re-election]."

What statment is not equivalent to what statment?

You said:
Why a person targets someone or something is only because of the most immediate, the most present cause.

This is accurate to what I claimed.

Then you said:
A person's actions can not be explained by any prior action that is not the most immediate, the most present.

This is not an accurate translation of the first sentence. You transformed a specific "why target" into a general "any explanation".

(no subject)

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner

Re: List of Anti-Government Characteristics Of Loughner