|
|
Post by duster on Apr 16, 2007 15:42:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 16, 2007 15:55:01 GMT -5
Given the size of the campus, I'm not sure whether anything could have been done to prevent the second shooting. So far the question doesn't seem to be being asked.
As awful as this is, it occurs to me that deaths on this scale happen more or less on a daily basis in Iraq, but somehow we numb ourselves to it. We're extremely lucky to live where we do, where an event like this is rare enough to grab the spotlight and hold it for weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 16, 2007 18:54:41 GMT -5
Sadly, this is becoming a common occurence in our global society. Since 1989:
1) École Polytechnique Massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 1989
2) Stockton Massacre - Stockton, California, United States, 1989
3) University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa, United States; 1991
4) Concordia University massacre - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; August 24, 1992
5) Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States; December 14, 1992
6) Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee, United States; November 15, 1995.
7) Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington, United States; February 2, 1996
8) Dunblane massacre - Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom; March 13, 1996
9) Sanaa massacre - Sanaa, Yemen; 1997
10) Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi, United States; October 1, 1997
11) Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky, United States; December 1, 1997
12) Jonesboro massacre - Craighead County (near Jonesboro), Arkansas, United States; March 24, 1998
13) Columbine High School massacre - Jefferson County (near Denver and Littleton), Colorado, United States; April 20, 1999
14) Santana High School - Santee, California,United States (near San Diego, California)
15) Osaka school massacre - Ikeda, Japan; 2001
16) Erfurt massacre - Erfurt, Germany; 2002
17) Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota, United States; 2003
18) Beslan school hostage crisis - Beslan, Russia; 2004
19) Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota, United States; 2005
20) Dawson College shooting - Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2006
21) Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, United States; 2006
22) Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado, United States; 2006
23) Virginia Tech shootings - Blacksburg, Virginia, United States; April 16, 2007
And if I am not mistaken, wasnt there a shooting in Alberta a week after Columbine? Is the right to carry arms and protect ones property worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 16, 2007 19:04:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 16, 2007 19:10:36 GMT -5
Best t-shirt slogan I've ver seen: the right to bear arms the right to bare breasts where would you rather live? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 16, 2007 19:15:43 GMT -5
Sadly, this is becoming a common occurence in our global society. Since 1989: lists 59 school shootings since 1988 (seemingly only elementary and high school), although some of them resulted in no injuries. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 16, 2007 19:25:27 GMT -5
Sadly, this is becoming a common occurence in our global society. Lack of respect extends beyond the borders of the hockey arena. There are definite problems. For all of our talk of "global community" (or even community) we are still motivated by self-interest (wars, greed, jealosy and hatred, and on and on. I'll stop before the sermon lecture gets going). |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2007 0:40:11 GMT -5
Someone on CBC made the point that when a country is involved in a prolonged war, homicide rates tend to go up because people's respect for human life is reduced. This might be especially true of the Iraq war, given the callous indifference to civilian deaths that the Bush administration has made very explicit.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2007 6:05:17 GMT -5
Someone on CBC made the point that when a country is involved in a prolonged war, homicide rates tend to go up because people's respect for human life is reduced. This might be especially true of the Iraq war, given the callous indifference to civilian deaths that the Bush administration has made very explicit. Interesting thought . . . but I wonder. Were any sources cited, or was it an off-the-cuff remark, his/her "feeling". And what about École Polytechnique? Robert Picton? Dawson College? Canada is not innocent in mass murders -- do we blame this on the mission to Afghanistan? I agree that there is a callous indifference to human life as a whole -- some might point to our willingness to abort unwanted children (or as some say foetuses) may be an indication of this indifference, or the way seniors are treated in nursing homes and the mentally handicapped (or whatever such are named these days) in their care facilities (I think of Michener Centre in Red Deer AB as an example -- big problems in the 80s), and even the idea that the death penalty is a "good solution" and "deterrent to crime". I don't think we need to look to war as a reason -- it's part of the symptom. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 17, 2007 10:12:35 GMT -5
Didn't know this. From CBC: Quebecer among 32 Virginia Tech victims
Last Updated: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 | 10:54 AM ET
CBC News
A language teacher originally from Montreal is among the 32 victims at Virginia Tech, according to state police dealing with the aftermath of Monday's tragedy.
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, who taught French at Virginia Tech's department of foreign languages, was killed when gunman Cho Seung-Hui opened fire, killing 32 before turning the gun on himself.
Couture-Nowak was originally from Montreal and had been teaching at Virginia Tech along with her husband, a horticulture professor.More to come |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2007 13:24:34 GMT -5
Someone on CBC made the point that when a country is involved in a prolonged war, homicide rates tend to go up because people's respect for human life is reduced. This might be especially true of the Iraq war, given the callous indifference to civilian deaths that the Bush administration has made very explicit. Interesting thought . . . but I wonder. Were any sources cited, or was it an off-the-cuff remark, his/her "feeling". And what about École Polytechnique? Robert Picton? Dawson College? Canada is not innocent in mass murders -- do we blame this on the mission to Afghanistan? I agree that there is a callous indifference to human life as a whole -- some might point to our willingness to abort unwanted children (or as some say foetuses) may be an indication of this indifference, or the way seniors are treated in nursing homes and the mentally handicapped (or whatever such are named these days) in their care facilities (I think of Michener Centre in Red Deer AB as an example -- big problems in the 80s), and even the idea that the death penalty is a "good solution" and "deterrent to crime". I don't think we need to look to war as a reason -- it's part of the symptom. It was a psychologist who cited another psychologist (I didn't catch the name). He said the US has had relatively low homicide rates in the 90s but they should be expected to go up as Iraq drags on. If the theory is true, I would think that Iraq would have the same affect on Canada, though perhaps to a lesser extent, because we are bombarded with the same images and propaganda. War may be a symptom, but it could also be a cause itself. In fact, that could be true of all the things you mention. If the killer was a young person, people will almost certainly speculate about whether video games and movies are to blame. But, if fiction can motivate someone to kill, then surely reality can too. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2007 13:58:06 GMT -5
One would think that if someone can be "persuaded" to kill from images on a video game or TV, then that person to quote the movie Young Guns "ain't all there, is he"
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2007 14:29:58 GMT -5
One would think that if someone can be "persuaded" to kill from images on a video game or TV, then that person to quote the movie Young Guns " ain't all there, is he" It's not about persuasion, it's about perception. How we perceive human life, our's and others', and how we deal with anger. I don't particularly have an opinion on whether violence in movies and video games causes real violence, but I have no doubt that real violence causes more real violence - it's an ancient truth really. Consider the difference between most people's reaction to this shooting and their reaction to the fact that 176 people were killed in Iraq on Saturday. Which reaction do you think more closely resemble's the shooter's attitude towards life in general? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2007 14:39:21 GMT -5
If the killer was a young person, people will almost certainly speculate about whether video games and movies are to blame. But, if fiction can motivate someone to kill, then surely reality can too. As you suggested, it has been done. Many in "my circle" are quick to jump on that bandwagon, though I'm not. It's an easy out, though what we watch/read/hear does influence. Neither am of the opinion that people are inherently evil. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2007 14:47:50 GMT -5
It's not about persuasion, it's about perception. How we perceive human life, our's and others', and how we deal with anger. On both accounts. Is my life more important than yours? Is my happiness? My good feelings? Of course not -- I'm the most important one, and if you get in my way/make me feel bad I'm going to squash you/make you pay the price. I don't think that is because of the rot in Iraq -- I think we need to bring it closer to home and admit that when we say that you are responsible for my feelings of self-worth then you had better be willing to accept responsibility and pay the price (not very eloquent -- let me work on that thought). As I said, I really don't think Iraq has much to do with it. The guy was PO'd; he took his frustration out on the figures that angered him . . . then (it seems) just carried on (I've been stuck inside all day and haven't heard any news on the subject since this morning so stand to be corrected). The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there" |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 17, 2007 17:01:15 GMT -5
Neither am of the opinion that people are inherently evil. Are you sure about that? Because my wife would be happy to point out where I keep my horns. About the massacre..... I don't know what to make of it anymore. While I am certainly not anti-gun, I do believe that there are many unbalanced people out there. Worse still, circumstance can unbalance even the most grounded individuals and to add to that the lethality of a gun, well, I am surprised that more incidents like these are not happening more often. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2007 17:07:04 GMT -5
Neither am of the opinion that people are inherently evil. Are you sure about that? Because my wife would be happy to point out where I keep my horns. I may need to adjust and make one exception . . . ;D No . . . I won't. There is evil . . . there is free will. Interesting how everything always comes back around . . . to choice. This one was a rotten one. Evil resides . . . it does not rule unless we let it. What depths of darkness in his soul being to lead him to this. Sad . . . truly sad. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2007 18:13:16 GMT -5
The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there" Right, but my point was not to criticise the reaction, but to point out how it might affect people like this shooter. Would something like this hit closer to home for him, someone who probably felt no sense of belonging to the community? He sees people being killed on the news every day and it's made out to be no big deal, so he sees little harm in making a statement with his suicide by killing a bunch of people. I'm not trying to say that this wouldn't have happened if there were no war in Iraq, I'm just saying that it's at least plausible that these events are made more likely because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 17, 2007 19:17:51 GMT -5
Yet, MC, he comes from a situation not that far removed from where human life was not valued and now is. His home country is one where there is a spector of . . . well, not fear, perhaps . . . worry? . . . not sure . . . but those nukes can easily point south as well as east.
Was he making a statement? Maybe he was just mentally unbalanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 17, 2007 20:36:28 GMT -5
The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there" Right, but my point was not to criticise the reaction, but to point out how it might affect people like this shooter. Would something like this hit closer to home for him, someone who probably felt no sense of belonging to the community? He sees people being killed on the news every day and it's made out to be no big deal, so he sees little harm in making a statement with his suicide by killing a bunch of people. I'm not trying to say that this wouldn't have happened if there were no war in Iraq, I'm just saying that it's at least plausible that these events are made more likely because of it. Isn't that a bit of a strecth? Was Jack the Ripper a by product of the War of the Roses? John Wayne Gasy acts the latent Vietnam effect? I don't believe in inherent evil, I believe that people chose to do evil either by intent or by circumstance. And good grief, we all have that ability. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 17, 2007 20:45:58 GMT -5
I may need to adjust and make one exception . . . ;D No . . . I won't. There is evil . . . there is free will. Interesting how everything always comes back around . . . to choice. This one was a rotten one. Evil resides . . . it does not rule unless we let it. What depths of darkness in his soul being to lead him to this. Sad . . . truly sad. I am trying to understand what made him snap...and to understand a person like that is not a recreational activity for the sane mind. The best way to describe it would be narcissistic victimization. "Look what she done to me and look what I will do." Unfortunalty, the gun makes the act easier and more lethal. And for those who claim that the gun is a the object that catalizes the evil, I have news for you. He would do the same thing to a room full of people with an axe....or a chain saw. It's been done before. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 17, 2007 21:17:23 GMT -5
Are you sure about that? Because my wife would be happy to point out where I keep my horns. I may need to adjust and make one exception . . . ;D No . . . I won't. There is evil . . . there is free will. Interesting how everything always comes back around . . . to choice. This one was a rotten one. Evil resides . . . it does not rule unless we let it. What depths of darkness in his soul being to lead him to this. Sad . . . truly sad. True. Yet, I can't help but think that people are not born evil, rather, they're either encouraged to it from an early age or they're taught it. From what I'm reading on this, there were plenty of warning signs that something was wrong with this person. One has to ask, though, were there warning signs in his youth and if so, what was done about them. Just throwing drugs at them usually doesn't work well. Convince the little man that what he is doing is morally right and he'll do it with a smile on his face. We see it all the time; the little man meaning those kept ignorant, or those without autonomy. Something caused this guy to snap. However, there were warning signs and it seems no one knew what to do about them. Another terrible loss. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 17, 2007 22:22:36 GMT -5
The reason why people react differently is that it hit closer to home -- Americans were killed. And yes, we do seem to value the lives of "our own" more than those "over there" Right, but my point was not to criticise the reaction, but to point out how it might affect people like this shooter. Would something like this hit closer to home for him, someone who probably felt no sense of belonging to the community? He sees people being killed on the news every day and it's made out to be no big deal, so he sees little harm in making a statement with his suicide by killing a bunch of people. I'm not trying to say that this wouldn't have happened if there were no war in Iraq, I'm just saying that it's at least plausible that these events are made more likely because of it. Was his act more like the US army killing people ... or more like the suicide bombers killing "infidels"? Psychologically speaking, if the violence on TV influenced this act, it would appear he is an Iraqi sympathizer. I don't believe for an instant in that psycho-mumble-jumble. If a kid struggles in school nowadays, it isn't because he/she isn't paying attention or he/she can't "get it" ... oh they must have ADD.  Our society is constantly deflecting blame from the individual and psychologically trying to rationalize the behaviour. Like I said previously "He aint all there". Nut-cases do strange things. Every school shooting wasn't during a time a war ... well there is always a war going on and if you got the right satellite I am sure you could watch war 24/7 ... but how do you explain the Ecole Polytechnique. That crazo walked in the room and asked all the male students to leave and then gave a little solioquoy on how he hated feminism and shot 14 women in cold blood. That was 1989. I think it was more plausible that he was feeling snubbed by women (maybe got sick of the way 90% of engineering program were leaning to blatant favourtism to women, like some nursing schools were moving towards blatant favourtism towards men - to up their numbers and make it accessible to both genders) than he saw images of war, or he watched too much porn and objectified women as worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 17, 2007 22:58:19 GMT -5
Right, but my point was not to criticise the reaction, but to point out how it might affect people like this shooter. Would something like this hit closer to home for him, someone who probably felt no sense of belonging to the community? He sees people being killed on the news every day and it's made out to be no big deal, so he sees little harm in making a statement with his suicide by killing a bunch of people. I'm not trying to say that this wouldn't have happened if there were no war in Iraq, I'm just saying that it's at least plausible that these events are made more likely because of it. Was his act more like the US army killing people ... or more like the suicide bombers killing "infidels"? Psychologically speaking, if the violence on TV influenced this act, it would appear he is an Iraqi sympathizer. I don't believe for an instant in that psycho-mumble-jumble. If a kid struggles in school nowadays, it isn't because he/she isn't paying attention or he/she can't "get it" ... oh they must have ADD. Our society is constantly deflecting blame from the individual and psychologically trying to rationalize the behaviour. Like I said previously "He aint all there". Nut-cases do strange things. Every school shooting wasn't during a time a war ... well there is always a war going on and if you got the right satellite I am sure you could watch war 24/7 ... but how do you explain the Ecole Polytechnique. That crazo walked in the room and asked all the male students to leave and then gave a little solioquoy on how he hated feminism and shot 14 women in cold blood. That was 1989. I think it was more plausible that he was feeling snubbed by women (maybe got sick of the way 90% of engineering program were leaning to blatant favourtism to women, like some nursing schools were moving towards blatant favourtism towards men - to up their numbers and make it accessible to both genders) than he saw images of war, or he watched too much porn and objectified women as worthless. If you think I'm trying to excuse this shooting, or that I'm saying that every shooting, or even any shooting, is directly caused by "psycho-mumble-jumble," then you are completely misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is, things don't happen in a vacuum, people are to some extent products of their society, and if you live in a society that cheapens life, maybe you should expect that disturbed people will act accordingly. It's not about the shooter "sympathizing" with any side, it's about a fundamental belief in what is right and what is wrong, and I think there's a lot of evidence (though I'm not in any way an expert) that people's morality is affected by the society in which they live. There's a reason why parents teach their children right and wrong, afterall. But, children don't learn only what their parents tell them, they learn about the nature of the world by observing it, and the world we live in is clearly one in which people value human life only in a very selective way, and only so long as it's convenient for them. And it's not only children who are affected by it. Take your ADD example. It may well be that it is used as an excuse, to avoid blaming anyone, but the fact is that ADD is a real disorder that does afflict some children, and it would be wrong to deny that just because some are using it as an excuse. Similarly, just because there were shootings outside of war time, it doesn't mean that the war doesn't make them more likely. Is it really so far fetched to think that the attitude that human lives don't matter unless they are in your "group" - an attitude which seems very pervasive in America today, from the president on down - would make a guy like this NOT think twice before pulling the trigger? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 18, 2007 6:09:44 GMT -5
I am not directing my comments towards you MC ... but the psychologist who proposed the theory. This is the part of the arguement I disagree with. and if you live in a society that cheapens life, maybe you should expect that disturbed people will act accordingly. I think that you are saying that the US cheapens life. I disagree. There has never been a time in the history of the world where there wasn't war. I would agree more with the theory if it was global (but even then it has holes in it). The fact is that the entire world cheapens life and it is an individual's job to rise above it. Israel has been at war since creation, Sunni vs Shiite, North vs South Korea, American civil war ... the list is endless. You can not predict extremist behaviour, that's why it is extremist. I am not saying that the environment doesn't influence people in some way (many experiments has proven it can) but I am saying that even if the environment put the latent thought in his head: "I hate my prof and those f*%$ers in my class .. oh look another few hundred dead in Iraq ... that's it I'll kill them" .... well it boils down to that most basic of human actions: Choice. I'd like to kill them, but I choose not to. The environment has nothing to do with that. If all variables are focused on trying to make you do a specific action, you can still choose not to do it. The fact the individual chooses to do it, shows an individual character flaw/instability that was there all along IMO. I agree we aren't born killers ... but at some point we choose to be. War is legalized killing and if he had an inate desire to kill and die then sign up for the US Army or he could have went back to China. He choose to kill illegally and I am not about to pass blame for that on other factors. Next thing these psycho will be suing the governments/media for putting latent thoughts of killing in their heads. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 18, 2007 7:33:39 GMT -5
Was his act more like the US army killing people ... or more like the suicide bombers killing "infidels"? Psychologically speaking, if the violence on TV influenced this act, it would appear he is an Iraqi sympathizer. For all we know he might have grown up watching uncut Bugs Bunny cartoons. They're bad; haven't you heard? More rationalizations that allow "qualified professionals" to hang more diplomas on their walls and keep their high-paying jobs. I grew up ADD, or so I've been told, and the thing that sorted me out was the army. No theraputical drugs, unless you ignore discounted beer and mess hall food. No therapy, other than a focused direction and another family with a whole bunch of brothers. They even gave me a rifle and put me in charge of 110 soldiers the last few years of my service. Imagine if MacLean's ever got a hold of that! Does there have to be an explanation? One of the hardest things to do is see things from the other guy's perspective. An explanation might be a start. But, it's usually "the-world-according-to-him." Worse, if there are differring opinions news networks will often bring the two "experts" and let them have at it. Then the viewer is left to their own conclusions and if you think the "experts" were out in left field ... I don't have the link, but Gwynne Dyer once said that the world may have had something like 20 minutes of world peace in the last few centuries. That's a paraphrase though. Mrs. Dis told me last weekend that I can get the entire Bugs Bunny collection, uncut, for about $70 bucks. I was waffling about picking it up. Think I will now. Life is good when you still get a laugh from "The Rabbit of Saville." And I know Dis Jr. will love it too. I think he'll turn out alright. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 18, 2007 8:27:44 GMT -5
Take your ADD example. It may well be that it is used as an excuse, to avoid blaming anyone, but the fact is that ADD is a real disorder that does afflict some children, and it would be wrong to deny that just because some are using it as an excuse. Similarly, just because there were shootings outside of war time, it doesn't mean that the war doesn't make them more likely. I've had ADD and ADHD students come through my classroom over the last few years, MacHabby. I never knew they had these disorders until they told me (always near the end of the subjects). I guess I had enough respect for them to approach me with that. Son of a gun. The only thing an educator I had to remember, or any of us for that matter, is that these people see the world differently and, as a result, they need to either hear or see the information differently in order to learn it. Drugs are sometimes necessary but approach and strategy is paramount as well. You can either bring them into the learning process, or distance them from it. This isn't directed at you buds; it's a generalization according to me. It doesn't matter how well we prepare our youngsters or sensor our media. It won't matter how many precautions we take. This sort of thing will always be there. And it's not just a North American problem as you and skilly so accurately point out. It's global and it manifests itself in many different ways. Some are pyscho and others are well-educated. And according to some experts, some watch Bugs Bunny. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 18, 2007 9:34:20 GMT -5
Well I have CNN ... and I choose not to watch the war coverage. Now sometimes I do, but just because there is war coverage, does not mean you have to watch it. Again a choice.
When I was young it was heavy metal music that was contributing to murders, then it was video games (Doom), then it was violence on TV, then it was pornography, now it is war coverage ... there is always something isn't there?
Like Dis said (if I am reading him right) , these individuals might get their "inspiration" from anything - from a comic book to a stranger saying "excuse me" the wrong way, to having dillusions of grandeur. Who knows what makes them tick ... but if they didn't watch war coverage, IMO, something else would have sparked them off; they were waiting for an excuse to make the choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 18, 2007 10:28:29 GMT -5
Well I have CNN ... and I choose not to watch the war coverage. Now sometimes I do, but just because there is war coverage, does not mean you have to watch it. Again a choice. The '91 Gulf War made CNN into what it is today. However, while the preceptions are different between each network, you're still only getting that portion of the story the editor to that network wants you to see ... or, is being told to air. Make you afraid of it, tell you whose to blame and provide the solution (available for the low, low price of ?? and available at local vendors. Yes skilly. I'm one of those people who will say hello to just about everyone in the halls at one point of the day or another. I've personally known three people in my life who have committed suicide (two military) and I'm totally convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that you can save someone's life simply by saying hello to them. Sometimes all it takes is acknowledgement that they are there. Pretty good place to work here in Kingston. What's that adage? "There's three sides to an argument, or in this case a perception; your side, my side and the truth."Nothing is more true. Watch their "panel of experts" next time. It's commonplace for politicians to criticize each other's initiatives only on principle. It could be the best budget in decades but the opposition will rip it apart just because. Several thousands of Canadians could be rescued from a war in Lebanon. But, forget about the success of the mission; the response was too slow. It's going to be hard to figure out what set this youth off. There might be several theories, one of which might reasonably explain what set off the time bomb inside him. But, unfortunately, no one will be able to outright eliminate future behaviours. There's simply too much we don't know about the human psyche. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 18, 2007 10:35:26 GMT -5
I'll speak to one point: Like Dis said (if I am reading him right) , these individuals might get their "inspiration" from . . . a stranger saying "excuse me" the wrong way The book I recommended ( Thanks for Chucking . . . ) speaks a bit to this. Of course, it did deal with severe cases in the school system, but one example from the book comes to mind. The kids the author deals with are angry and they take their anger out on others with little hesitation. Example: Someone bumps into you. You immediately take offense (I think this goes for us "normal" [whatever that is] people as well) and say something (the kids would push back). If you turn around and see the person with a white cane you think "blind, didn't see me, it was unintentional". Question: why couldn't a "seeing" person have bumped into you accidentally as well? Perception, though, says (for these kids) someone is out to get me and they strike back. Some people are angry and look for any excuse. Some people are loners and look for any way of getting attention. Some people are mean and pull legs off ants. Society/environment has something to do with the way they feel, sure, but ultimately we are should be responsible for our actions. Unfortunately, it is easy to blame television, or video games, or alcoholic parents, or George W for the ills of our tiny little world and not think that we have choices. It is always someone else's fault (did I share the article from an Australian paper about a guy suing the railroad company because he injured himself while spraying graffiti -- the company should have known people would spray, and should have taken better precautions to make sure it could be done? "Not my fault". Too bad you can't outlaw stupidity. I guess that's where the Darwin Awards come in.). |
|
Our society is constantly deflecting blame from the individual and psychologically trying to rationalize the behaviour. Like I said previously "He aint all there". Nut-cases do strange things. Every school shooting wasn't during a time a war ... well there is always a war going on and if you got the right satellite I am sure you could watch war 24/7 ... but how do you explain the Ecole Polytechnique.