2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on December 17, 2023, 10:21:09 PM
-
Jordan Peterson interview with a guy who almost went on a school shooting.
It starts with his broken home life all the way till his late teens, everything that set him on that path that was ultimately averted. A lot of people simply summarize active shooters as evil people but the more I learn about active shooters they really aren't always evil rather have been lead down a path of evil. The problem with quickly writing these people off as evil is that in demonizing someone you no longer need to look deeper to find out what created them and therefore you lack understanding of how to stop them.
It is almost 2 hours long and it is a heavy listen and heartbreaking but feels important to listen to in this current era of mass killings we are in. It is also available on podcast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su4Is-kBGRw
-
Wrong.
If you don't believe mass murder of unarmed students and teachers is evil, you really need to take a class or go to church more.
If something is morally bad or wrong, it is evil by definition. Google it.
People are defined by their actions, not their intentions, justifications or rationalizations. Unless someone is criminally insane, they KNOW what they are doing is wrong.
Someone who does evil IS EVIL.
There is no such thing as a good person who does evil things. If you believe that, then you have to ask which is the real character of the person -- the one who does good deeds and goes to church, or the one who rapes and murders children?
Liberals/Democrats/Socialists define people based on intentions and ignore actions or results. Sounds like you fall into that camp, too.
-
Wrong.
If you don't believe mass murder of unarmed students and teachers is evil, you really need to take a class or go to church more.
If something is morally bad or wrong, it is evil by definition. Google it.
People are defined by their actions, not their intentions, justifications or rationalizations. Unless someone is criminally insane, they KNOW what they are doing is wrong.
Someone who does evil IS EVIL.
There is no such thing as a good person who does evil things. If you believe that, then you have to ask which is the real character of the person -- the one who does good deeds and goes to church, or the one who rapes and murders children?
Liberals/Democrats/Socialists define people based on intentions and ignore actions or results. Sounds like you fall into that camp, too.
Your opinion is noted.
I never said mass murder isn't evil, please don't misrepresent what I said.
-
Your opinion is noted.
I never said mass murder isn't evil, please don't misrepresent what I said.
No, you said, "..the more I learn about active shooters they really aren't always evil but have been lead down a path of evil."
But what you refused to address was my statement that you can't be a good person and do evil things unless you are insane.
If you do evil, YOU ARE EVIL.
I didn't misrepresent anything. That's your department.
-
No, you said, "..the more I learn about active shooters they really aren't always evil but have been lead down a path of evil."
But what you refused to address was my statement that you can't be a good person and do evil things unless you are insane.
If you do evil, YOU ARE EVIL.
I didn't misrepresent anything. That's your department.
The problem with quickly writing these people off as evil is that in demonizing someone you no longer need to look deeper to find out what created them and therefore you lack understanding of how to stop them. Just saying "school shooters are evil" and moving on is a simplistic and ignorant response that justifies not having to understand or deal with the complexity of the problem.
I never said a person can be good and do evil things. I said a person can do evil without necessarily being evil.
Unless you have managed to live your life without ever sinning, you are evil by your own definition. Everyone does evil at some point in their life.
Mark 7:21-22
For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
-
so then why did you edit your post?
Your opinion is noted.
I never said mass murder isn't evil, please don't misrepresent what I said.
-
The problem with quickly writing these people off as evil is that in demonizing someone you no longer need to look deeper to find out what created them and therefore you lack understanding of how to stop them. Just saying "school shooters are evil" and moving on is a simplistic and ignorant response that justifies not having to understand or deal with the complexity of the problem.
I never said a person can be good and do evil things. I said a person can do evil without necessarily being evil.
Unless you have managed to live your life without ever sinning, you are evil by your own definition. Everyone does evil at some point in their life.
Mark 7:21-22
For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
Wow. I guess it's not possible for someone to just say "school shooters are evil" and unable to help stop the problem because they're busy or lack intelligence to help solve the problem. Many people also don't have the authoritative positions to help solve the issue. So by them just saying they're evil is about all they can do that's easy.
There is nothing wrong with writing someone off as evil quickly. I wasn't alive when Hitler was doing his thing, but I say "Hitler was evil". I cannot time travel back to do anything else to support that statement to deal with what his problem was.
Are you making the statement that "everyone does evil at some point in their life?". Or do you just like that quote?
-
The problem with quickly writing these people off as evil is that in demonizing someone you no longer need to look deeper to find out what created them and therefore you lack understanding of how to stop them. Just saying "school shooters are evil" and moving on is a simplistic and ignorant response that justifies not having to understand or deal with the complexity of the problem.
I never said a person can be good and do evil things. I said a person can do evil without necessarily being evil.
Unless you have managed to live your life without ever sinning, you are evil by your own definition. Everyone does evil at some point in their life.
Mark 7:21-22
For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.
Wrong.
If someone does evil but is not evil, then what are they? Misunderstood? :rofl: :rofl: Prisons are full of misunderstood evil-doers, then.
I do not do evil. I have morals. I didn't say I'm not a sinner, but there are degrees of sin. Sins of the heart or mind are NOT the same as sins that translate into evil deeds. When I've been given more change than I'm owed, I don't shove it in my pocket and quickly leave the store. I let the cashier know.
Most people I know have a moral compass that tells them, "If it's just a little sin, then you don't need to worry about it." I have the opposite view. Basically, is my integrity (and soul) worth whatever that "little sin" offers?
Or as my mother used to say, "Don't ever let me hear you got caught robbing a bank for less than a couple of million dollars. If you're going to do something wrong, it better be worth it!" I never expect to be given an opportunity to take that much, and neither did she. It was a way of saying "don't commit the little sins, and the chance of committing the big ones will take care of itself."
I think the line is pretty bright when comparing mass murder to other sins -- like taking $5 from your mother's wallet without permission.
Most of what you listed is in a list called The Seven Deadly Sins, which is not based on religious texts.
Do some actual research, church-going person.
As for evil, you could learn from Forrest Gump:
Evil is as evil does.
-
Wow. I guess it's not possible for someone to just say "school shooters are evil" and unable to help stop the problem because they're busy or lack intelligence to help solve the problem. Many people also don't have the authoritative positions to help solve the issue. So by them just saying they're evil is about all they can do that's easy.
There is nothing wrong with writing someone off as evil quickly. I wasn't alive when Hitler was doing his thing, but I say "Hitler was evil". I cannot time travel back to do anything else to support that statement to deal with what his problem was.
Are you making the statement that "everyone does evil at some point in their life?". Or do you just like that quote?
In my experience, people who do evil things had a choice. Nobody made anyone take up a weapon and target classmates. Unless there is a serious mental defect at work, they know it's wrong, but they made the decision to do it anyway.
Consequences must be attached to these actions, even if afterward the shooter expresses remorse.
The guy in the interview made the choice to not commit murder. Case in point. There's no difference between "almost a school shooter" and "not a school shooter" -- neither acted on their impulses.
-
In my experience, people who do evil things had a choice. Nobody made anyone take up a weapon and target classmates. Unless there is a serious mental defect at work, they know it's wrong, but they made the decision to do it anyway.
Consequences must be attached to these actions, even if afterward the shooter expresses remorse.
The guy in the interview made the choice to not commit murder. Case in point. There's no difference between "almost a school shooter" and "not a school shooter" -- neither acted on their impulses.
I saw a vid about 1 situation where someone who pleads insanity and isn't insane vs. someone who actually is. And it doesn't look like what the movies portray in this example. The Madison Stone Douglas shooter was 1 example. He made "kill me now" gestures when in the interrogation room and made like he was biting his wrist but didn't draw blood (suicidal) and later used this to show he was insane. But then a vid was played by someone who really was deemed insane and the person who killed the people knew he did it, didn't deny it, but didn't see anything wrong. Not trying to justify something like taking the life of someone who's trying to take your life, but just that what he did was OK. When asked how he felt, he didn't understand the question (no remorse).
Later the vid explained that many times the mental hospital is worst than jail, especially for someone who's faking it.
So the relevance is that the guy in the vid knew what he was doing and decided not to do it for what ever reason (I didn't watch the vid). I'm going to assume it's because he realized it was wrong.
-
I saw a vid about 1 situation where someone who pleads insanity and isn't insane vs. someone who actually is. And it doesn't look like what the movies portray in this example. The Madison Stone Douglas shooter was 1 example. He made "kill me now" gestures when in the interrogation room and made like he was biting his wrist but didn't draw blood (suicidal) and later used this to show he was insane. But then a vid was played by someone who really was deemed insane and the person who killed the people knew he did it, didn't deny it, but didn't see anything wrong. Not trying to justify something like taking the life of someone who's trying to take your life, but just that what he did was OK. When asked how he felt, he didn't understand the question (no remorse).
Later the vid explained that many times the mental hospital is worst than jail, especially for someone who's faking it.
So the relevance is that the guy in the vid knew what he was doing and decided not to do it for what ever reason (I didn't watch the vid). I'm going to assume it's because he realized it was wrong.
Maybe I missed it. Is there a parallel between the videos you saw and the reality that evil is based on actions -- not thought?
We have a screwed up judicial system that liberals corrupted into a social services branch. While there are circumstances and forces that can guide someone to make evil decisions, there are also many, many, many avenues to choose that don't include mass murder of teens or toddlers.
Did the people in the videos ever once seek help from anyone? Professional mental health services? Clergy? Friends? Family? Police?
Many mass shootings are suicide events, hence why there is seldom a shooter to punish. So, if someone who doesn't die says he was suicidal, do we judge him less harshly? How about we base it on body count? 3 is not as bad as 13, and that not as bad as 30.
I have no empathy for the shooters. They are not just kids lashing out or screaming for help. They chose murder as a way to get attention. If they were not raised to understand that random killings are wrong, then I don't know that they can ever be "fixed" no matter how long they get "treated". In fact, sending them to a mental health facility means 2 things: They can be free as soon as they convince the facility managers they are now sane -- which is sooner than a life or death sentence -- and they will be signaling to the next mass shooter there's no real consequences to killing a dozen people.
If most of these people were sick enough to be committed BEFORE the event, why weren't they? Why does it take murder to bring these people into the system so they can be FORCED to get treatment and be kept away from society for our safety?
Seems like we have the cart before the horse. You can't treat someone that's already gotten away with murder. I don't care about anyone's opinion about the conditions compared to prison. They should never be allowed to be free again, so treatment is basically irrelevant -- unless you intend to make them suffer more by helping them grow a conscience while they wait to die in a cell.
The TV series Signs of a Psychopath gave very good examples of these evil people, the clinical explanations of their behaviors and how to spot the signs. A psychopath is not someone you can fix. You can teach them to say and do the "normal" things to pass as an empathetic person, but they will always lack that empathy. Most are narcissists who care more about how the deaths they caused affect themselves than the fact a person is dead and the family and friends have been affected.
Since it's almost impossible to fix these people, treatment at a mental health facility should be off the table. Even if medication reduces those tendencies, too many have relapsed from not taking their meds for a number of reasons. More often it's after a brief period following their release from institutional treatment where meds are monitored.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13530014/
-
so then why did you edit your post?
I typed a sentence to Flapp that I thought was worth mentioning in the original post as well so I added it to my original post.
-
Wow. I guess it's not possible for someone to just say "school shooters are evil" and unable to help stop the problem because they're busy or lack intelligence to help solve the problem. Many people also don't have the authoritative positions to help solve the issue. So by them just saying they're evil is about all they can do that's easy.
There is nothing wrong with writing someone off as evil quickly. I wasn't alive when Hitler was doing his thing, but I say "Hitler was evil". I cannot time travel back to do anything else to support that statement to deal with what his problem was.
Are you making the statement that "everyone does evil at some point in their life?". Or do you just like that quote?
I am not saying that referring to the act of calling school shootings evil means someone is being lazy or ignorant. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough but what I was trying to describe is when people put it into some simple good vs evil dichotomy and think that is a good enough explanation. It is an overly simplistic explanation of the problem that hurts more than helps. If I said fat people are simply lazy, it would not accurately describe all overweight people and would do a disservice to efforts to improve their weight situations.
My statement that everyone is evil at some point in their life is trying to show flapp the fault in his logic. Flapp appears to be a Christian if I am not mistaken and Christianity teaches that all have sinned. So if doing something evil makes a person evil the he, and everyone else alive, is, by his reasoning, evil. Who has not felt at least greed, envy, or lust at some point in life, so are we all "evil"? I guess I could have more simply stated that his premise was wrong, that doing evil does not make someone inherently evil. Hitler, trying to wipe out an entire race of people, is quite a bit different than a tortured (figuratively speaking) teenager lashing out. I think there is a difference between an evil act and an evil person who does an evil act.
Listening to this man speak for almost 2 hours, I would be hard pressed to describe him as evil. His plan was evil but I don't think he is evil.
-
goalposts moved...
I typed a sentence to Flapp that I thought was worth mentioning in the original post as well so I added it to my original post.
-
The problem with quickly writing these people off as evil is that in demonizing
someone you no longer need to look deeper to find out what created them and
therefore you lack understanding of how to stop them.
First, demonizing? Really??
Calling someone evil IS BY DEFINITION demonizing them. You seem to think the title can't be earned. Recognizing the truth is not a jump to judgement.
Second, it's not an either-or proposition. Why can't you call evil "evil," and also look deeper into WHY they turned out that way?
Third, you can't stop them in the way you mean. The only way to stop a psychopath is early identification and isolation. Once again, you believe human behavior can be controlled, that laws and something something will prevent crime from ever happening.
-
Wrong.
If someone does evil but is not evil, then what are they? Misunderstood? :rofl: :rofl: Prisons are full of misunderstood evil-doers, then.
I do not do evil. I have morals. I didn't say I'm not a sinner, but there are degrees of sin. Sins of the heart or mind are NOT the same as sins that translate into evil deeds. When I've been given more change than I'm owed, I don't shove it in my pocket and quickly leave the store. I let the cashier know.
Most people I know have a moral compass that tells them, "If it's just a little sin, then you don't need to worry about it." I have the opposite view. Basically, is my integrity (and soul) worth whatever that "little sin" offers?
Or as my mother used to say, "Don't ever let me hear you got caught robbing a bank for less than a couple of million dollars. If you're going to do something wrong, it better be worth it!" I never expect to be given an opportunity to take that much, and neither did she. It was a way of saying "don't commit the little sins, and the chance of committing the big ones will take care of itself."
I think the line is pretty bright when comparing mass murder to other sins -- like taking $5 from your mother's wallet without permission.
Most of what you listed is in a list called The Seven Deadly Sins, which is not based on religious texts.
Do some actual research, church-going person.
As for evil, you could learn from Forrest Gump:
Evil is as evil does.
What I listed was in the gospel of Mark...
I agree with your nuance, that there are degrees of wrongdoing. Not saying any and all evil are equivalent but neither are all people who do evil equivalent.
Was King David an evil person? He lusted after a woman, committed adultery with her, and had her husband sent off to war to die so he could have her to himself. Seems like an evil act but King David was described as God's favorite. Simply put I do not think that all people who do evil are evil. Some are, but not all.
Listen to the interview, I think you would have a hard time saying that this individual is an evil person.
-
goalposts moved...
If adding an additional thought, trying to elaborate on a nuanced subject, is moving the goalposts then so be it.
-
What I listed was in the gospel of Mark...
I agree with your nuance, that there are degrees of wrongdoing. Not saying any and all evil are equivalent but neither are all people who do evil equivalent.
Was King David an evil person? He lusted after a woman, committed adultery with her, and had her husband sent off to war to die so he could have her to himself. Seems like an evil act but King David was described as God's favorite. Simply put I do not think that all people who do evil are evil. Some are, but not all.
Listen to the interview, I think you would have a hard time saying that this individual is an evil person.
Did he commit the crimes he professes to wanting to do?
No?
Then the evil act never transpired. So, why would you believe I'd call him evil?
Pay attention to what I'm telling you. You might learn something.
And stop trying to turn this into a Bible lesson. I've studied the Bible, both in Church, Scouts and College classes. The stories are meant to illustrate specific lessons and experiences. They are not a documentary. Stick to more current events, please.
-
First, demonizing? Really??
Calling someone evil IS BY DEFINITION demonizing them. You seem to think the title can't be earned. Recognizing the truth is not a jump to judgement.
Second, it's not an either-or proposition. Why can't you call evil "evil," and also look deeper into WHY they turned out that way?
Third, you can't stop them in the way you mean. The only way to stop a psychopath is early identification and isolation. Once again, you believe human behavior can be controlled, that laws and something something will prevent crime from ever happening.
You falsely assume these people are all psychopaths.
I do call evil evil. Evil acts are evil. Evil people are evil. But not all evil acts are done be evil people.
Can't stop them? This guy was stopped, not int the sense someone physically prevented him but a true friend's love (an insufficient explanation of his story) is what changed his mind. It is also what saved him from another form of suicide years later.
-
You falsely assume these people are all psychopaths.
I do call evil evil. Evil acts are evil. Evil people are evil. But not all evil acts are done be evil people.
Can't stop them? This guy was stopped, not int the sense someone physically prevented him but a true friend's love (an insufficient explanation of his story) is what changed his mind. It is also what saved him from another form of suicide years later.
Show me where i said all "these people" (whoever that might include) are psychopaths. I'm focusing on the ones who decide to commit mass murder.
Show me a mass murderer, and i'll show you a psychopath.
If talking to someone stopped him, then he's not a psychopath. Read my previous words. If he didn't commit the murders, then i don't know why you keep trying to say I would paint him as evil. :wacko:
-
Did he commit the crimes he professes to wanting to do?
No?
Then the evil act never transpired. So, why would you believe I'd call him evil?
Pay attention to what I'm telling you. You might learn something.
And stop trying to turn this into a Bible lesson. I've studied the Bible, both in Church, Scouts and College classes. The stories are meant to illustrate specific lessons and experiences. They are not a documentary. Stick to more current events, please.
I am trying to illustrate a specific lesson for you.
I figure you would call him evil because he was ready to do it. He had a plan, he took steps towards the plan, and he had the resolve. Only thing he didn't have yet was the gun, which he was waiting for another person to deliver to him.
-
Show me where i said all "these people" (whoever that might include) are psychopaths. I'm focusing on the ones who decide to commit mass murder.
Show me a mass murderer, and i'll show you a psychopath.
If talking to someone stopped him, then he's not a psychopath. Read my previous words. If he didn't commit the murders, then i don't know why you keep trying to say I would paint him as evil. :wacko:
Who was the "them" you meant when you said "Third, you can't stop them in the way you mean. The only way to stop a psychopath is early identification and isolation." then?
Not all mass murderers are psychopaths. Not all active shooters lack empathy.
-
I am trying to illustrate a specific lesson for you.
I figure you would call him evil because he was ready to do it. He had a plan, he took steps towards the plan, and he had the resolve. Only thing he didn't have yet was the gun, which he was waiting for another person to deliver to him.
Wrong.
People can make evil plans all they want. Nobody dies from that. He had the resolve? LOL!! Resolve means to make a decision. When the time came to make the decision, he chose to stop. It's all premeditation until the shooting starts. Then the evil actually begins.
Are you really like this? Or are you just trying to play more mind games?
-
if that's what you really did...
If adding an additional thought, trying to elaborate on a nuanced subject, is moving the goalposts then so be it.
-
if that's what you really did...
Nuance is the tool of the losing debater.
Nuance: A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
Basically, if you post something that's wrong, you can try to spin it as being "nuance" -- something really, really close to right given some undefined subtle difference.
-
and call it being objective...
Nuance is the tool of the losing debater.
Nuance: A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
Basically, if you post something that's wrong, you can try to spin it as being "nuance" -- something really, really close to right given some undefined subtle difference.
-
Who was the "them" you meant when you said "Third, you can't stop them in the way you mean. The only way to stop a psychopath is early identification and isolation." then?
Not all mass murderers are psychopaths. Not all active shooters lack empathy.
Got any evidence of that?
To help determine to what extent murderers tend to be psychopaths, a recent
paper performed a meta-analysis of 22 studies of more than 2,600 homicide
offenders in six countries, in which each offender’s psychopathy score was
assessed using either the PCL-R or PCL-YV (youth version, used for juvenile
offenders) (Fox & DeLisi, 2018). They found that the average PCL-R score for
someone who had committed murder in these studies was 21.1, with scores
ranging from 9.4—31.5. Robert Hare estimated that the average PCL-R score
in the general non-offender population is 4 or 5, so this means that all the
offenders were at least somewhat higher than the community average and that
most murderers studied could be considered at least “moderately” psychopathic.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201812/are-murderers-unfairly-labeled-psychopaths
The scores for all murderers studied were 2 to 8 times higher that that of the non-offender population, making them all exhibiting at least some traits of psychopathy.
Those tests included murderers who did not commit mass murder. I would have to deduce that the larger the offense, the more likely their score would increase. This backs up my deduction:
Specifically, those who committed murders involving sexual and/or sadistic
elements had higher average psychopathy scores compared to those who
committed less heinous forms of murder.
i.e. The more heinous the crime, the higher the psychopathy scores. I believe mass murder is in the "heinous" category.
-
Life without Parole
Shocking: Teen Receives Life Sentence for School Shooting
Poor, misunderstood psychopath...
https://youtu.be/CQUpKDHwVc4
-
Nuance is the tool of the losing debater.
Wrong. It is for people who care who see the world outside of black and white
-
if that's what you really did...
Have you never written something then gone back later to add another line to make something more clear or to emphasize a point?
-
very objective of you, officer strawman...
Have you never written something then gone back later to add another line to make something more clear or to emphasize a point?
-
so says the master debater...
Wrong. It is for people who care who see the world outside of black and white
-
Wrong.
People can make evil plans all they want. Nobody dies from that. He had the resolve? LOL!! Resolve means to make a decision. When the time came to make the decision, he chose to stop. It's all premeditation until the shooting starts. Then the evil actually begins.
Are you really like this? Or are you just trying to play more mind games?
You refuse to differentiate between an evil act and an evil person. :closed:
When you watch the interview maybe we can continue this conversation.
-
so says the master debater...
well I wouldn't consider myself a "master"....
-
very objective of you, officer strawman...
What strawman do you feel I created?
-
Got any evidence of that?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201812/are-murderers-unfairly-labeled-psychopaths
The scores for all murderers studied were 2 to 8 times higher that that of the non-offender population, making them all exhibiting at least some traits of psychopathy.
Those tests included murderers who did not commit mass murder. I would have to deduce that the larger the offense, the more likely their score would increase. This backs up my deduction:
i.e. The more heinous the crime, the higher the psychopathy scores. I believe mass murder is in the "heinous" category.
Above average ≠ All
Looking at mass shootings as murders is also misleading. They are as much suicides as they are murders.
It is a valid question to ask though. One would be reasonable to consider that maybe psychopathy was present if they were able to kill people like that.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-positivity/202208/mass-shooters-systematic-psychiatric-study
Schizophrenia is the most common diagnosis of mass shooters. "Cerfolio et al. (2022) found that 18 of the 35 surviving shooters had schizophrenia, overwhelmingly the most common diagnosis."
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/mass-shooters-and-psychopathology-spectrum
" .....second that horrific violence on a mass scale is well within the range of socially deviant but psychiatrically “non-disordered” human behavior. Tragically, human history tells us that this has always been so."
-
Above average ≠ All
Looking at mass shootings as murders is also misleading. They are as much suicides as they are murders.
It is a valid question to ask though. One would be reasonable to consider that maybe psychopathy was present if they were able to kill people like that.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-positivity/202208/mass-shooters-systematic-psychiatric-study
Schizophrenia is the most common diagnosis of mass shooters. "Cerfolio et al. (2022) found that 18 of the 35 surviving shooters had schizophrenia, overwhelmingly the most common diagnosis."
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/mass-shooters-and-psychopathology-spectrum
" .....second that horrific violence on a mass scale is well within the range of socially deviant but psychiatrically “non-disordered” human behavior. Tragically, human history tells us that this has always been so."
Learn to read. All murderers studied showed above average scores for psychopathy.
Also;
Conclusions: The comorbidity of schizophrenia and psychopathy was found
to be higher among violent patients than among nonviolent patients. Violent patients
with schizophrenia who score high on measures of psychopathy may have a
personality disorder that precedes the emergence of psychotic symptoms, or they
may constitute a previously unclassified subtype of schizophrenia, characterized
by early symptoms of conduct disorder symptoms and persistent violent behavior.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10375148/
It's not a single variable cause. Why must you be so argumentative when you know so little about this topic?
-
Learn to read. All murderers studied showed above average scores for psychopathy.
Also;https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10375148/
It's not a single variable cause. Why must you be so argumentative when you know so little about this topic?
You make a false statement, I point out that you are wrong, and you complain that I am too argumentative. You just can't stand being shown to be wrong.
You are moving the goalpost, first you indirectly state all mass shooters are psychopaths then you say murderers are above average. Your own citation refutes your first statement and you didn't realize it. Furthermore you admit that you are using one set of data to make an assumption about a subset of individuals. You also completely ignored the evidence I mentioned on the specific group of individuals. You like data, until it undermines your claims.
You also stated "All murderers studied showed...." Did you check to see if they studied any mass shooters or you just making assumptions again?
You want to say if someone does an evil thing that they are themselves evil, fine, you have a right to that opinion and we can agree to disagree there but don't go lecturing me with your false assumptions.
-
You make a false statement, I point out that you are wrong, and you complain that I am too argumentative. You just can't stand being shown to be wrong.
You are moving the goalpost, first you indirectly state all mass shooters are psychopaths then you say murderers are above average. Your own citation refutes your first statement and you didn't realize it. Furthermore you admit that you are using one set of data to make an assumption about a subset of individuals. You also completely ignored the evidence I mentioned on the specific group of individuals. You like data, until it undermines your claims.
You also stated "All murderers studied showed...." Did you check to see if they studied any mass shooters or you just making assumptions again?
You want to say if someone does an evil thing that they are themselves evil, fine, you have a right to that opinion and we can agree to disagree there but don't go lecturing me with your false assumptions.
Are you making up terms now? That's an oxymoron, moron.
You either make a statement, or you indirectly imply something. You can't indirectly state anything! LOL!!
You'd be funny if you weren't so annoying.
False assumptions? Which ones are false? You have proof?
And why would the study need to have a separate category for mass shooters? Are they somehow different than murderers with lower body counts? Some ATTEMPTED mass shooters were stopped before they reached the requisite number to be classified a mass shooting. Which category do you put them in?
You're moving the posts again, trying to make what I POSTED (not stated) irrelevant based on your irrelevant criteria.
Lame.
-
You're moving the posts again, trying to make what I POSTED (not stated) irrelevant based on your irrelevant criteria.
Lame.
^^^This.
-
Are you making up terms now? That's an oxymoron, moron.
You either make a statement, or you indirectly imply something. You can't indirectly state anything! LOL!!
You'd be funny if you weren't so annoying.
False assumptions? Which ones are false? You have proof?
And why would the study need to have a separate category for mass shooters? Are they somehow different than murderers with lower body counts? Some ATTEMPTED mass shooters were stopped before they reached the requisite number to be classified a mass shooting. Which category do you put them in?
You're moving the posts again, trying to make what I POSTED (not stated) irrelevant based on your irrelevant criteria.
Lame.
That is your rebuttal? You are going to go grammar technicality after I showed your claims to be wrong? Ok, sure, i'll give you that freebie.
Yes, false assumption. You stated "Show me a mass murderer, and i'll show you a psychopath." You couldn't produce evidence to show all mass murderers were psychopaths and could only produce evidence that murderers on average are higher than the normal population for psychopathy. You didn't even show this data applied to mass shooters (I checked your article, none of them mentioned mass shooters). Then on top of that I gave you evidence where mass shooters were interviewed and not only did not all of them have psychopathy, only about half of them had schizophrenia which, as you pointed out, commonly contained aspects of psychopathy. So your assumption was incorrect.
Why have a separate category for mass shooters? Because they are a whole different animal killing for different reasons than other murderers. You think you can lump serial killers, dictators, suicide bombers, and people who shoot up a school under one umbrella in terms of a psychological analysis? I answered this before when I pointed out that these school/work shooters frequently have a suicidal element to them. They aren't killing to control a population, they aren't all killing for some thrill, they aren't all killing on a religious quest. Listen to the interview and see how this guy's reasons were very different from most other mass murderers. See, this is the problem with simply labeling them as evil and thinking you understand it because you don't. If you don't understand them you are going to fail at helping/stopping them.
BTW, what you posted isn't irrelevant, it just doesn't support your claim.
-
That is your rebuttal? You are going to go grammar technicality after I showed your claims to be wrong? Ok, sure, i'll give you that freebie.
Yes, false assumption. You stated "Show me a mass murderer, and i'll show you a psychopath." You couldn't produce evidence to show all mass murderers were psychopaths and could only produce evidence that murderers on average are higher than the normal population for psychopathy. You didn't even show this data applied to mass shooters (I checked your article, none of them mentioned mass shooters). Then on top of that I gave you evidence where mass shooters were interviewed and not only did not all of them have psychopathy, only about half of them had schizophrenia which, as you pointed out, commonly contained aspects of psychopathy. So your assumption was incorrect.
Why have a separate category for mass shooters? Because they are a whole different animal killing for different reasons than other murderers. You think you can lump serial killers, dictators, suicide bombers, and people who shoot up a school under one umbrella in terms of a psychological analysis? I answered this before when I pointed out that these school/work shooters frequently have a suicidal element to them. They aren't killing to control a population, they aren't all killing for some thrill, they aren't all killing on a religious quest. Listen to the interview and see how this guy's reasons were very different from most other mass murderers. See, this is the problem with simply labeling them as evil and thinking you understand it because you don't. If you don't understand them you are going to fail at helping/stopping them.
BTW, what you posted isn't irrelevant, it just doesn't support your claim.
Is it your belief that mass shooters are not murderers?
I mean, what's your argument? That the category is too broad or something?
You make no sense.
-
Is it your belief that mass shooters are not murderers?
No, that wouldn't make much sense. Unless you want to go on some technicality of a mass shooter who only manages to wound.
I mean, what's your argument? That the category is too broad or something?
You make no sense.
My argument is that mass shooters like this need to be understood for their unique motivations, backgrounds, etc. Calling them evil psychopaths doesn't do anything to that end. Putting them into the general murderer category provides very limited informational value.
-
No, that wouldn't make much sense. Unless you want to go on some technicality of a mass shooter who only manages to wound.
My argument is that mass shooters like this need to be understood for their unique motivations, backgrounds, etc. Calling them evil psychopaths doesn't do anything to that end. Putting them into the general murderer category provides very limited informational value.
Why would a mass shooter have "unique motivations?" Do you know of a list of motivations mass shooters have that other murderers do not?
You seem to be hung up on the labeling of someone based on their actions. How else do you propose to determine whether or not someone is a psychopath? Have them complete a 250 page questionnaire?
(https://i.imgur.com/6nlJBG3.jpg)
-
Why would a mass shooter have "unique motivations?" Do you know of a list of motivations mass shooters have that other murderers do not?
You seem to be hung up on the labeling of someone based on their actions. How else do you propose to determine whether or not someone is a psychopath? Have them complete a 250 page questionnaire?
(https://i.imgur.com/6nlJBG3.jpg)
Why wouldn't mass shooters have different motivations from other types of murderers?
A large enough number of mass shooters survive that they can be studied to determine whether they are psychopaths or not. Why am I "hung up"? Because you don't fix the problem very well if you have a flawed understanding of their actions and motivations.
-
Why wouldn't mass shooters have different motivations from other types of murderers?
A large enough number of mass shooters survive that they can be studied to determine whether they are psychopaths or not. Why am I "hung up"? Because you don't fix the problem very well if you have a flawed understanding of their actions and motivations.
You're now answering questions with questions.
Waste of time.
-
You're now answering questions with questions.
Waste of time.
Wrong.
You are putting forth a flawed premise, I am asking you to make your case that a mass shooter wouldn't have any unique motivations to show your question is flawed. I'd argue that the burden of proof is on you to first make the case that all types of murderers are motivated by the same thing before asking me why a mass shooter would have a unique motivation.
Your argument for picking out psychopaths isn't even remotely scientific, you just set out your own standard.
-
Wrong.
You are putting forth a flawed premise, I am asking you to make your case that a mass shooter wouldn't have any unique motivations to show your question is flawed. I'd argue that the burden of proof is on you to first make the case that all types of murderers are motivated by the same thing before asking me why a mass shooter would have a unique motivation.
Your argument for picking out psychopaths isn't even remotely scientific, you just set out your own standard.
I never said all murderers have the same motivations, Mr. Strawman. But, YOU made the claim and are continuing to double down on it saying mass shooters have unique motivations.
I asked what those motivations are. if you could list them, maybe we can compare them to other murderers to see just how "unique' they are.
Not a mystery why you won't answer the question. You know where it'll lead, and you can't stand being wrong.
-
I never said all murderers have the same motivations, Mr. Strawman. But, YOU made the claim and are continuing to double down on it saying mass shooters have unique motivations.
I asked what those motivations are. if you could list them, maybe we can compare them to other murderers to see just how "unique' they are.
Not a mystery why you won't answer the question. You know where it'll lead, and you can't stand being wrong.
You said "Why would a mass shooter have "unique motivations?" If you thought they had unique motivations there would have been no reason to ask such a question. So are you disputing that mass shooters have unique motivations or not? Stop playing games.
From the reading I have done there are a number of unique motivations. Many of them I would describe as a unique form of revenge, lashing out at a person or a group they feel harmed by. Some also have delusions leading them to believe something false that they must accomplish. Read the book I mentioned, listen to this interview.
I know where it doesn't lead and that is your unscientific claim that all mass shooters are psychopaths.
-
You said "Why would a mass shooter have "unique motivations?" If you thought they had unique motivations there would have been no reason to ask such a question. So are you disputing that mass shooters have unique motivations or not? Stop playing games.
From the reading I have done there are a number of unique motivations. Many of them I would describe as a unique form of revenge, lashing out at a person or a group they feel harmed by. Some also have delusions leading them to believe something false that they must accomplish. Read the book I mentioned, listen to this interview.
I know where it doesn't lead and that is your unscientific claim that all mass shooters are psychopaths.
i've seen some stupid ways you've tried to wiggle your way out of things you've said, but this is a doozie!
"From the reading I have done there are a number of unique motivations. Many of them I would describe as a unique form of revenge..."
You can't add the word "unique" to a category of motivations (revenge) and pretend that makes it unique. Well, maybe YOU can, but not reasonable people.
Is it your belief (based on "the reading you've done") that revenge sought by mass shooters is somehow different than revenge sought by other murderers? How is one type of murder based on revenge different than another type of murder based on revenge? Is a person who shoots his wife and her lover for revenge any different than a student who shoots 20 classmates and faculty members for bullying?
You have yet to describe how any motivation a mass shooter may use is in any way "unique" to mass shooters.
-
It was nice and quiet to not see things being "objective" and made up.
The Columbine shooters targeted jocks because they bullied them. But 1 jock was in the parking lot as they were loading up and this one wasn't a bully to either. They told him to go home and he wasn't harmed.
With the weapons they used, there is no way that they can target only the jocks who were bullies to them. But instead randomly shoot at anyone wearing a letterman jacket, uniform, or hat. How do they know that wasn't Brian who helped Dylan dry his hair after being swirlied by other jocks.
Gay club shooter, what was his "unique" motivation? Often not all at a gay club are gay. I know lots of straight girls who go to gay clubs with their BGF because they don't want to get hit on all night. heck, I even went to a gay club with my friend as a wingman in Vegas. I left once he got his groove on and it was obvious he didn't me to keep him company. Going to a club by yourself puts off a loser vibe.
So does "unique" exclude collateral damage?
A unique mass shooter would be someone who's doing one while standing on 1 leg, wearing a big foam cowboy hat, while eating an ice cream cone in his other hand.
-
i've seen some stupid ways you've tried to wiggle your way out of things you've said, but this is a doozie!
"From the reading I have done there are a number of unique motivations. Many of them I would describe as a unique form of revenge..."
You can't add the word "unique" to a category of motivations (revenge) and pretend that makes it unique. Well, maybe YOU can, but not reasonable people.
Is it your belief (based on "the reading you've done") that revenge sought by mass shooters is somehow different than revenge sought by other murderers? How is one type of murder based on revenge different than another type of murder based on revenge? Is a person who shoots his wife and her lover for revenge any different than a student who shoots 20 classmates and faculty members for bullying?
You have yet to describe how any motivation a mass shooter may use is in any way "unique" to mass shooters.
It is called summarizing. If you wanted a more in depth explanation, might I suggest simply asking for one instead of being an a-hole. Unless you are incapable of doing that?
Go listen to the interview, he lays out his whole revenge model and you can listen to it yourself better than I could explain it. In short, he was going to kill a bunch of innocent people to punish his mom for all the terrible things she did to him raising him.
In a California incident a guy stabbed and shot girls because he was upset women would not date him (he was an incel) and he took his revenge against innocent women he found.
Workplace shootings are often found to be related to having been fired or laid off.
I would put all of those into the category of unique revenge because they are often not trying to murder the person who wronged them but instead murder a bunch of innocent people.
If you can't see the difference between an angry spouse killing their partner over infidelity vs killing 20 innocent children at a school I don't see how you can ever grow to understand this.
-
It was nice and quiet to not see things being "objective" and made up.
The Columbine shooters targeted jocks because they bullied them. But 1 jock was in the parking lot as they were loading up and this one wasn't a bully to either. They told him to go home and he wasn't harmed.
With the weapons they used, there is no way that they can target only the jocks who were bullies to them. But instead randomly shoot at anyone wearing a letterman jacket, uniform, or hat. How do they know that wasn't Brian who helped Dylan dry his hair after being swirlied by other jocks.
Gay club shooter, what was his "unique" motivation? Often not all at a gay club are gay. I know lots of straight girls who go to gay clubs with their BGF because they don't want to get hit on all night. heck, I even went to a gay club with my friend as a wingman in Vegas. I left once he got his groove on and it was obvious he didn't me to keep him company. Going to a club by yourself puts off a loser vibe.
So does "unique" exclude collateral damage?
A unique mass shooter would be someone who's doing one while standing on 1 leg, wearing a big foam cowboy hat, while eating an ice cream cone in his other hand.
Collateral damage would mean people you don't intend to hurt. That is different I would argue than killing a bunch of random, innocent people on purpose.
-
It is called summarizing. If you wanted a more in depth explanation, might I suggest simply asking for one instead of being an a-hole. Unless you are incapable of doing that?
Go listen to the interview, he lays out his whole revenge model and you can listen to it yourself better than I could explain it. In short, he was going to kill a bunch of innocent people to punish his mom for all the terrible things she did to him raising him.
In a California incident a guy stabbed and shot girls because he was upset women would not date him (he was an incel) and he took his revenge against innocent women he found.
Workplace shootings are often found to be related to having been fired or laid off.
I would put all of those into the category of unique revenge because they are often not trying to murder the person who wronged them but instead murder a bunch of innocent people.
If you can't see the difference between an angry spouse killing their partner over infidelity vs killing 20 innocent children at a school I don't see how you can ever grow to understand this.
Ok, Dr. Phil. Compare:
the motives of a school mass shooter who targets random, innocent people
to the motives of a shooter who targets random, innocent people attending a concert in Vegas,
and the motives of a shooter who targets random, innocent people attending a church.
The act itself has nothing to do with the motive, The underlying motive is THE PERSON IS A PSYCHOPATH and doesn't care who gets hurt.
If the motive is revenge, then they would target the ones who wronged them, correct? If they choose to shoot random students in a hallway instead, that's the act of a psychopath -- no direct line between the dead and the motive.
Same for the concert and church shooters. No direct line between whatever transgression the shooter is basing the act on. Just random, innocent people who happen to be there.
They are all psychopaths. There are no "unique" OR common motives driving them. They simply have no reason other than to kill -- and who they kill doesn't matter to them.
In most instances, the real motive is suicide, but they are too cowardly to off themselves. So, they choose a time and place to be killed by the police. Killing others is just incidental to the actual intent -- self destruction.
Now, if you want to delve into the INDIVIDUAL (not unique) circumstances that made them suicidal, that's fine. But the motive to commit mass murder is not unique among them.
The Newtown shooter may be an obvious example. He was diagnosed and treated for mental illness/autism. He, along with other school shooters, left behind evidence/statements that they wanted to be famous -- to achieve a record-breaking body count on their way out of existence. That in itself is not a motive, but a goal that gave them a rationalized objective to reach for in their ultimate desire to stop breathing themselves. Did he seek revenge? Don't know. With his mental problems, I can only guess he was bullied at school. Kids are cruel, and anyone they see as different or weak will be targets of some pretty nasty stuff.
I've said it before, video games don't make people killers, but they can have a desensitizing effect that makes killing less repulsive. The military uses the same type of desensitizing techniques to train soldiers to kill other human beings -- an act any rational human being would find difficult.
None of this is "unique" to mass shooters, though. I lived in Oklahoma after college. My wife and I had a game we played every night when the news came on -- to see who could guess the number of deaths reported in that half hour. Seemed like drug deals and robberies topped the motive category. There were also the occasional psychopath who came along and committed mass murder.
The term Going Postal was first coined with the mass murder just above my apartment complex in Edmond.
The Sirloin Stockade steak house murder trial was just starting when we arrived in OK. It was said to be a robbery that happened just as the restaurant closed. All employees and remaining guests were marched into the walk-in fridge and executed.
There was the Wynn's IGA 24 hour supermarket, also in Edmond. It was robbery orchestrated by a former employee. Took the 3 employees working that 3AM shift to a back room and executed them.
https://www.newson6.com/story/5e3683962f69d76f620987b8/man-executed-for-1985-grocery-store-murders
There was rarely a night when a body wasn't found in a park, in a wooded area, or in an abandoned house.
There was a couple that went on a multi-state crime spree and happened to come through our area. An Air Force Airman was going to visit a friend, but in the apartment parking area, she was abducted by the couple for her car and any money or credit cards she had. Police found her body under an abandoned house days later.
Every single one was a psychopath. It doesn't matter if they were 15 or 50. They should be executed, because little can be learned from them and their "unique motives" which might prevent the next such crime.
The human condition is what it is. You can't raise kids outside of their family's influence, and even if you could, we see what foster care and orphanages can produce. Some people should never be allowed to reproduce, but that's something that has and will always happen.
Are all psychopaths killers? Of course not. Many are productive leaders. They rise quickly in their chosen professions -- lawyers, politicians, military leaders, etc. -- with much of the credit going to their psychopathy. When you are a narcissistic megalomaniac with little regard for the feelings of others or the effects you have on them, it's easier to focus on what you want and say "fu" to everyone else.
i bet you even have worked with or do work with at least one or two psychopaths, and if you tried, you'd be able to document the things they do that are common traits for psychopaths.
-
Ok, Dr. Phil. Compare:
the motives of a school mass shooter who targets random, innocent people
to the motives of a shooter who targets random, innocent people attending a concert in Vegas,
and the motives of a shooter who targets random, innocent people attending a church.
The act itself has nothing to do with the motive, The underlying motive is THE PERSON IS A PSYCHOPATH and doesn't care who gets hurt.
If the motive is revenge, then they would target the ones who wronged them, correct? If they choose to shoot random students in a hallway instead, that's the act of a psychopath -- no direct line between the dead and the motive.
Same for the concert and church shooters. No direct line between whatever transgression the shooter is basing the act on. Just random, innocent people who happen to be there.
They are all psychopaths. There are no "unique" OR common motives driving them. They simply have no reason other than to kill -- and who they kill doesn't matter to them.
In most instances, the real motive is suicide, but they are too cowardly to off themselves. So, they choose a time and place to be killed by the police. Killing others is just incidental to the actual intent -- self destruction.
Now, if you want to delve into the INDIVIDUAL (not unique) circumstances that made them suicidal, that's fine. But the motive to commit mass murder is not unique among them.
The Newtown shooter may be an obvious example. He was diagnosed and treated for mental illness/autism. He, along with other school shooters, left behind evidence/statements that they wanted to be famous -- to achieve a record-breaking body count on their way out of existence. That in itself is not a motive, but a goal that gave them a rationalized objective to reach for in their ultimate desire to stop breathing themselves. Did he seek revenge? Don't know. With his mental problems, I can only guess he was bullied at school. Kids are cruel, and anyone they see as different or weak will be targets of some pretty nasty stuff.
I've said it before, video games don't make people killers, but they can have a desensitizing effect that makes killing less repulsive. The military uses the same type of desensitizing techniques to train soldiers to kill other human beings -- an act any rational human being would find difficult.
None of this is "unique" to mass shooters, though. I lived in Oklahoma after college. My wife and I had a game we played every night when the news came on -- to see who could guess the number of deaths reported in that half hour. Seemed like drug deals and robberies topped the motive category. There were also the occasional psychopath who came along and committed mass murder.
The term Going Postal was first coined with the mass murder just above my apartment complex in Edmond.
The Sirloin Stockade steak house murder trial was just starting when we arrived in OK. It was said to be a robbery that happened just as the restaurant closed. All employees and remaining guests were marched into the walk-in fridge and executed.
There was the Wynn's IGA 24 hour supermarket, also in Edmond. It was robbery orchestrated by a former employee. Took the 3 employees working that 3AM shift to a back room and executed them.
https://www.newson6.com/story/5e3683962f69d76f620987b8/man-executed-for-1985-grocery-store-murders
There was rarely a night when a body wasn't found in a park, in a wooded area, or in an abandoned house.
There was a couple that went on a multi-state crime spree and happened to come through our area. An Air Force Airman was going to visit a friend, but in the apartment parking area, she was abducted by the couple for her car and any money or credit cards she had. Police found her body under an abandoned house days later.
Every single one was a psychopath. It doesn't matter if they were 15 or 50. They should be executed, because little can be learned from them and their "unique motives" which might prevent the next such crime.
The human condition is what it is. You can't raise kids outside of their family's influence, and even if you could, we see what foster care and orphanages can produce. Some people should never be allowed to reproduce, but that's something that has and will always happen.
Are all psychopaths killers? Of course not. Many are productive leaders. They rise quickly in their chosen professions -- lawyers, politicians, military leaders, etc. -- with much of the credit going to their psychopathy. When you are a narcissistic megalomaniac with little regard for the feelings of others or the effects you have on them, it's easier to focus on what you want and say "fu" to everyone else.
i bet you even have worked with or do work with at least one or two psychopaths, and if you tried, you'd be able to document the things they do that are common traits for psychopaths.
Just because you say mass shooters are psychopaths repeatedly doesn't make it true though. I am sure some of them are actual psychopaths, I never said none of them are, but the evidence doesn't support your claim that ALL mass shooters are psychopaths.
In the large study of mass shooters I mentioned previously, they interviewed a number of shooters in prison. These people had remorse, real psychopaths aren't going to have any remorse. There was a video of a student who brought a shotgun to school to shoot the place up but a quick acting teacher grabbed it out of his hands before he shot anyone. I don't think you can tell on the video but the teacher said that the boy immediately started crying, not something a psychopath is going to do.
In the Jordan Peterson interview, the target of the guy's revenge was his mom but it was going to be accomplished by killing innocent people. That is why I called it a unique form of revenge because the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence. As opposed to the more common tendency to enact violence upon the target itself.
-
Just because you say mass shooters are psychopaths repeatedly doesn't make it true though. I am sure some of them are actual psychopaths, I never said none of them are, but the evidence doesn't support your claim that ALL mass shooters are psychopaths.
In the large study of mass shooters I mentioned previously, they interviewed a number of shooters in prison. These people had remorse, real psychopaths aren't going to have any remorse. There was a video of a student who brought a shotgun to school to shoot the place up but a quick acting teacher grabbed it out of his hands before he shot anyone. I don't think you can tell on the video but the teacher said that the boy immediately started crying, not something a psychopath is going to do.
In the Jordan Peterson interview, the target of the guy's revenge was his mom but it was going to be accomplished by killing innocent people. That is why I called it a unique form of revenge because the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence. As opposed to the more common tendency to enact violence upon the target itself.
Did you not read what I wrote? You just wrote, 'That is why I called it a unique form of revenge because the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence. "
I posted, "They are all psychopaths. There are no "unique" OR common motives driving them. They simply have no reason other than to kill -- and who they kill doesn't matter to them."
Show me how "the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence" is not the same as "...who they kill doesn't matter to them."
And just because you always disagree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.
i offered evidence of what i'm saying is true. You only offer the statements by someone else as if they will argue with me for you.
Just stop. if you can't synthesize the interview and augment it with more than that, nothing you say matters. i might as well be debating a brick wall -- or a recording of someone you posted a link to.
-
Just because you say mass shooters are psychopaths repeatedly doesn't make it true though. I am sure some of them are actual psychopaths, I never said none of them are, but the evidence doesn't support your claim that ALL mass shooters are psychopaths.
In the large study of mass shooters I mentioned previously, they interviewed a number of shooters in prison. These people had remorse, real psychopaths aren't going to have any remorse. There was a video of a student who brought a shotgun to school to shoot the place up but a quick acting teacher grabbed it out of his hands before he shot anyone. I don't think you can tell on the video but the teacher said that the boy immediately started crying, not something a psychopath is going to do.
In the Jordan Peterson interview, the target of the guy's revenge was his mom but it was going to be accomplished by killing innocent people. That is why I called it a unique form of revenge because the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence. As opposed to the more common tendency to enact violence upon the target itself.
This is rhetorical , but do you read what you post before hitting the post button?
The kid didn't shoot anyone, so he's not a mass shooter. There is no way to tell how he would react if he had gone thru with it. We only know how he reacted after the teacher took the gun away. Bad example.
How do you know a convict is telling the truth and having "remorse"? Can you be sure they aren't acting just to get a better sentencing or parole in their favor later?
-
This is rhetorical , but do you read what you post before hitting the post button?
The kid didn't shoot anyone, so he's not a mass shooter. There is no way to tell how he would react if he had gone thru with it. We only know how he reacted after the teacher took the gun away. Bad example.
How do you know a convict is telling the truth and having "remorse"? Can you be sure they aren't acting just to get a better sentencing or parole in their favor later?
I almost burned my ex's house down, but decided against it. Can I get a grant to be studied to determine what motivates an (almost) arsonist and murderer?
What if the only thing stopping me was the price of gas? Or my aversion to using fossil fuels that are killing the planet?
When does a motivation to do evil get overridden by another motivation that keeps you from acting on that first motivation?
Isn't that what we call a conscience? Maybe the "almost mass shooter" failed to become one because he really isn't a psychopath, and his moral sense of right and wrong took over?
It almost sounds like going to church and learning about right and wrong could prevent crime.
-
you hardly ever commit arson?
#nuance
#objective
I almost burned my ex's house down, but decided against it. Can I get a grant to be studied to determine what motivates an (almost) arsonist and murderer?
What if the only thing stopping me was the price of gas? Or my aversion to using fossil fuels that are killing the planet?
When does a motivation to do evil get overridden by another motivation that keeps you from acting on that first motivation?
Isn't that what we call a conscience? Maybe the "almost mass shooter" failed to become one because he really isn't a psychopath, and his moral sense of right and wrong took over?
It almost sounds like going to church and learning about right and wrong could prevent crime.
-
I almost burned my ex's house down, but decided against it. Can I get a grant to be studied to determine what motivates an (almost) arsonist and murderer?
What if the only thing stopping me was the price of gas? Or my aversion to using fossil fuels that are killing the planet?
When does a motivation to do evil get overridden by another motivation that keeps you from acting on that first motivation?
Isn't that what we call a conscience? Maybe the "almost mass shooter" failed to become one because he really isn't a psychopath, and his moral sense of right and wrong took over?
It almost sounds like going to church and learning about right and wrong could prevent crime.
U could have almost burned it down by choosing to leave the stove on while taking a shit. But instead chose to turn it off, thus preventing the home from burning down.
#objective
-
This is rhetorical , but do you read what you post before hitting the post button?
The kid didn't shoot anyone, so he's not a mass shooter. There is no way to tell how he would react if he had gone thru with it. We only know how he reacted after the teacher took the gun away. Bad example.
How do you know a convict is telling the truth and having "remorse"? Can you be sure they aren't acting just to get a better sentencing or parole in their favor later?
I mention it as an anecdote because it is an in depth interview where he explains himself. Such a thing is extremely hard to get from people who successfully completed mass shootings given a large number of them are dead and the rest are in jail. In the book I mentioned they tried to contact a dozen or so living mass shooters and only 2 or three were willing to provide talk about their actions.
Is this guy who never actually show someone a perfect case study? No, but I think it is the next best thing.
Sure, it is a fair question about whether a convict might feign remorse in order to gain some benefit but I don't see that being the case. Someone who murders 20 people isn't going to get out early or get a reduced 5 year sentence because they seemed remorseful.
-
Did you not read what I wrote? You just wrote, 'That is why I called it a unique form of revenge because the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence. "
I posted, "They are all psychopaths. There are no "unique" OR common motives driving them. They simply have no reason other than to kill -- and who they kill doesn't matter to them."
Show me how "the target of his revenge was unrelated to the target of his violence" is not the same as "...who they kill doesn't matter to them."
And just because you always disagree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong.
i offered evidence of what i'm saying is true. You only offer the statements by someone else as if they will argue with me for you.
Just stop. if you can't synthesize the interview and augment it with more than that, nothing you say matters. i might as well be debating a brick wall -- or a recording of someone you posted a link to.
It is not that I disagree with you, it is that there isn't evidence to support your claim that all mass shooters are psychopaths. You offered evidence about a related topic (murderers in general) but not about mass shooters themselves.
If you want to nitpick what I referred to as unique then fine, go ahead, but where are you going with all of this? Are you trying to make the case that mass shooters and their motives are no different than regular murders or that such differences don't matter?
Why synthesize the interview if you are just going to disqualify what he said since he never actually went through with it? You seem intent on attacking this whole idea that mass shooters are unique from other types or murderers. What good comes of chalking it up to being a psychopath and not looking any deeper?
-
I almost burned my ex's house down, but decided against it. Can I get a grant to be studied to determine what motivates an (almost) arsonist and murderer?
What if the only thing stopping me was the price of gas? Or my aversion to using fossil fuels that are killing the planet?
When does a motivation to do evil get overridden by another motivation that keeps you from acting on that first motivation?
Isn't that what we call a conscience? Maybe the "almost mass shooter" failed to become one because he really isn't a psychopath, and his moral sense of right and wrong took over?
It almost sounds like going to church and learning about right and wrong could prevent crime.
Could a conscience or moral values stop someone from carrying out a mass shooting? Sure
Could difficulty in getting a gun stop someone from comitting a mass shooting? Also possible.
What about fear or shame? Again, also possible
There is quite a difference between saying you are going to burn your ex's house down and preparing to do so but backing out at the last second. If you poured gas on her house but it was too windy for the lighter to ignite the fire and you gave up I don't think that would be in the same vein as mentally saying you are going to do it but not taking any action towards doing so. Certainly I would not lump just any high school student who felt like going on a shooting rampage as someone who almost went on a school shooting.
-
Could a conscience or moral values stop someone from carrying out a mass shooting? Sure
Could difficulty in getting a gun stop someone from comitting a mass shooting? Also possible.
What about fear or shame? Again, also possible
There is quite a difference between saying you are going to burn your ex's house down and preparing to do so but backing out at the last second. If you poured gas on her house but it was too windy for the lighter to ignite the fire and you gave up I don't think that would be in the same vein as mentally saying you are going to do it but not taking any action towards doing so. Certainly I would not lump just any high school student who felt like going on a shooting rampage as someone who almost went on a school shooting.
There are people who go to work every day, planning to rob the bank where they work, or kidnap and rape the hot receptionist in their office, or even shoot up the building. They draw maps, devise plans, buy supplies, read books and websites on "how to" do their desired crimes, and so on.
You know why almost all of them never do? In large part because the simple process of fantasizing, planning and dreaming of their perfect crimes being executed are, in and of themselves, therapeutic. They know what they are dreaming of is wrong, but they still want to think about it -- visualize themselves doing it -- and that can create a release of all the pent up anger, frustration, fear or whatever other emotions caused them to think of doing this criminal act.
So, perhaps your "almost shooter' went through all those preps to commit the shooting then decided against because the prepping helped calm his anger. Sometimes just knowing you could do something and chose not to is just as satisfying as actually doing it and having to suffer the consequences -- or worse, see the impact your actions had on innocent people and their families and friends.
You want to believe he was a mass shooter up to the point he chose not to. What if he was never a mass shooter, but was enjoying the thought of being one -- just without any intention of ever going through with it?
-
I mention it as an anecdote because it is an in depth interview where he explains himself. Such a thing is extremely hard to get from people who successfully completed mass shootings given a large number of them are dead and the rest are in jail. In the book I mentioned they tried to contact a dozen or so living mass shooters and only 2 or three were willing to provide talk about their actions.
Is this guy who never actually show someone a perfect case study? No, but I think it is the next best thing.
Sure, it is a fair question about whether a convict might feign remorse in order to gain some benefit but I don't see that being the case. Someone who murders 20 people isn't going to get out early or get a reduced 5 year sentence because they seemed remorseful.
They could also show good behavior so get other benefits in prison.
-
It is not that I disagree with you, it is that there isn't evidence to support your claim that all mass shooters are psychopaths. Y
AKA I disagree with you.
-
There are people who go to work every day, planning to rob the bank where they work, or kidnap and rape the hot receptionist in their office, or even shoot up the building. They draw maps, devise plans, buy supplies, read books and websites on "how to" do their desired crimes, and so on.
You know why almost all of them never do? In large part because the simple process of fantasizing, planning and dreaming of their perfect crimes being executed are, in and of themselves, therapeutic. They know what they are dreaming of is wrong, but they still want to think about it -- visualize themselves doing it -- and that can create a release of all the pent up anger, frustration, fear or whatever other emotions caused them to think of doing this criminal act.
Are you admitting to something?
So, perhaps your "almost shooter' went through all those preps to commit the shooting then decided against because the prepping helped calm his anger. Sometimes just knowing you could do something and chose not to is just as satisfying as actually doing it and having to suffer the consequences -- or worse, see the impact your actions had on innocent people and their families and friends.
That was not the takeaway I got from the interview but I suppose anything is possible. However since you refuse to even listen to the interview you aren't in a position to say what was really going through his miund.
You want to believe he was a mass shooter up to the point he chose not to. What if he was never a mass shooter, but was enjoying the thought of being one -- just without any intention of ever going through with it?
Do you want to believe he didn't have it in him or that he wasn't serious?
-
AKA I disagree with you.
Nope, the facts don't agree with him.
-
They could also show good behavior so get other benefits in prison.
I think actual remorse is a more probably possibility but sure, someone could feign remorse if they thought it would get them some benefit in prison.
-
I think actual remorse is a more probably possibility but sure, someone could feign remorse if they thought it would get them some benefit in prison.
So u got no solid opinion like usual.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
So u got no solid opinion like usual.
What? That's one of his most definitive statements!
I think actual remorse is a more probably possibility but sure, someone could feign remorse if they thought it would get them some benefit in prison.
is "probably possibility" like "double secret probation?"
-
you forgot his "some" at the end
#objective
What? That's one of his most definitive statements!
is "probably possibility" like "double secret probation?"
-
you forgot his "some" at the end
#objective
That's what we have you for.
:geekdanc:
-
So u got no solid opinion like usual.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Neither do you. You speculate, then I speculated, now you are going to talk about having a solid opinion?
-
What? That's one of his most definitive statements!
is "probably possibility" like "double secret probation?"
Are you an expert in prison administration? If not your speculation is no better than mine. You didn't even have a real rebuttal, you just made fun of the term I used.
-
Neither do you. You speculate, then I speculated, now you are going to talk about having a solid opinion?
Hahaha, u fell for it.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Are you an expert in prison administration? If not your speculation is no better than mine. You didn't even have a real rebuttal, you just made fun of the term I used.
Are you an "expert" in anything you post about?
-
#nuance
Are you an "expert" in anything you post about?
-
Are you an "expert" in anything you post about?
self-proclaimed "smith" of the 1911 variety
-
Are you an "expert" in anything you post about?
Depends on how you define expert. Somethings maybe, many things no. When I am not an expert I don't make such certain claims because I know there may be a lot I do not know.
-
Depends on how you define expert. Somethings maybe, many things no. When I am not an expert I don't make such certain claims because I know there may be a lot I do not know.
You realize you just said you were an expert in "some things" [sic], but didn't bother to offer what you think "expert" means?
Everything depends on how you define things. Maybe using the generally accepted definition is a reasonable starting point.
Why would you ask ME if I'm an expert on this topic, when you have no definitive opinion on what that even means?
This is why these threads go around and around. Plain English still exists. It's not hard to use, but if something can have multiple meanings, and it's not clear which you are using via the context, it's customary to let the reader/listener know which definition you are using.
But, I'm not an expert in English, meaning i've never been tested against any "expert" standard or earned any credentials such as a teacher or professor, linguist or similar. However, i did ace the standardized English competency test my Freshman year of college, so I didn't have to go to that class for half a semester. Oh, and i received a commendation at the US Air Force Squadron Officers' School at Keesler AFB for outstanding written communication. Maybe that qualifies me as an expert in English?
i don't have any credentials in the topic of psychopaths or what "unique motivations" almost school shooters may or may not be experiencing. But, I have lived a long time, been to a lot of places, seen all kinds of people, and experienced people with mental issues, emotional problems and even those who committed horrible crimes. Some might say that gives a person "street creds", which I've often seen outweigh purely academic information which was memorized and many times regurgitated without assimilation.
My ex has a double major in psychology and sociology. Even with that degree, I was still better at analyzing what people are going through, why they do what they do, and how to best solve a situation involving some pretty difficult and dangerous behaviors. Not saying that was 100% of the time, but I've been told by many I'm have a knack for reading people and situations, and that means my analysis and solutions are usually spot on.
Expert? Does someone need to be labeled an expert for you to believe the verifiable facts someone is offering you? Or is this just your last ditch attempt to discredit my opinions since you've run out of arguments?
When you can't win on the facts, attack the person.
-
You realize you just said you were an expert in "some things" [sic], but didn't bother to offer what you think "expert" means?
Wrong. I said "somethings maybe". I said maybe because depending on how you defined expert I may or may not be an expert in your eyes. You might use a colloquial definition or a legal definition
Everything depends on how you define things. Maybe using the generally accepted definition is a reasonable starting point.
Why would you ask ME if I'm an expert on this topic, when you have no definitive opinion on what that even means?
You are free to make the case that you are an expert in prison administration if you wish. Otherwise under what grounds would you have to criticize my statement about the probability of an inmate giving an interview to try and obtain a benefit? In the end does it really matter either way to your point or mine? Not really so lets just set the whole expert question aside.
In the end you can question the reliability of the interviews, that is certainly a scientifically valid question, but it seems like you are letting your theory lead rather than the evidence. Even if there is some motive for these people to feign remorse you cannot prove that the remorse they exhibited is fake. And given the relatively small amount of living mass shooters willing to talk we have use the data available. There should always be a question of whether someone is telling the truth in a qualitative study but the mere possibility of dishonesty shouldn't make us throw everything out or we end up with very little to help understand, and thus help reduce mass shooters.
i don't have any credentials in the topic of psychopaths or what "unique motivations" almost school shooters may or may not be experiencing. But, I have lived a long time, been to a lot of places, seen all kinds of people, and experienced people with mental issues, emotional problems and even those who committed horrible crimes. Some might say that gives a person "street creds", which I've often seen outweigh purely academic information which was memorized and many times regurgitated without assimilation.
My ex has a double major in psychology and sociology. Even with that degree, I was still better at analyzing what people are going through, why they do what they do, and how to best solve a situation involving some pretty difficult and dangerous behaviors. Not saying that was 100% of the time, but I've been told by many I'm have a knack for reading people and situations, and that means my analysis and solutions are usually spot on.
I think perhaps the issue is that you were using psychopath in a colloquial sense while I was referring to a psychological diagnosis.
-
Wrong. I said "somethings maybe". I said maybe because depending on how you defined expert I may or may not be an expert in your eyes. You might use a colloquial definition or a legal definition
You are free to make the case that you are an expert in prison administration if you wish. Otherwise under what grounds would you have to criticize my statement about the probability of an inmate giving an interview to try and obtain a benefit? In the end does it really matter either way to your point or mine? Not really so lets just set the whole expert question aside.
In the end you can question the reliability of the interviews, that is certainly a scientifically valid question, but it seems like you are letting your theory lead rather than the evidence. Even if there is some motive for these people to feign remorse you cannot prove that the remorse they exhibited is fake. And given the relatively small amount of living mass shooters willing to talk we have use the data available. There should always be a question of whether someone is telling the truth in a qualitative study but the mere possibility of dishonesty shouldn't make us throw everything out or we end up with very little to help understand, and thus help reduce mass shooters.
I think perhaps the issue is that you were using psychopath in a colloquial sense while I was referring to a psychological diagnosis.
Why? Are you an expert in psychological diagnosis?
-
Why? Are you an expert in psychological diagnosis?
Nope, that's why I rely on expert diagnosis data instead
-
Nope, that's why I rely on expert diagnosis data instead
Are you an expert in researching, evaluating and analyzing expert diagnosis data?
Or do you just post links that Gurgle feeds you?
-
Are you an expert in researching, evaluating and analyzing expert diagnosis data?
Or do you just post links that Gurgle feeds you?
Says the guy who googled rates of psychopaths among murderers and tried, but failed, to turn that into proof of his claim....
Bottom line here is that you made a statement about psychopathy in mass shooters you cannot back up.
-
Says the guy who googled rates of psychopaths among murderers and tried, but failed, to turn that into proof of his claim....
Bottom line here is that you made a statement about psychopathy in mass shooters you cannot back up.
i never offered anything as proof of any claim.
i merely used it as rebuttal to your weak posts and opinions.
Bottom line is you keep harping on this one case as if the ALMOST shooter is an actual shooter. That all by itself disproves anything you claimed via a YT video.
-
i never offered anything as proof of any claim.
i merely used it as rebuttal to your weak posts and opinions.
Bottom line is you keep harping on this one case as if the ALMOST shooter is an actual shooter. That all by itself disproves anything you claimed via a YT video.
You claimed all mass shooters are psychopaths and we have gone in circles with you failing to ever support your hypothesis. That hypothesis rebutted nothing I said.
This whole time you have sought, for unknown reasons, to call into question what this guy said to Jordan Peterson. Not based on any real scientific argument rather just your assertion that someone who didn't complete his plan shouldn't count. Mind you Jordan Peterson is an accomplished psychologist with clinical experience and he thought the story worth sharing rather than suggesting his experiences didn't count.
So why are you trying so hard to disqualify this guy's experience in trying to understand mass shooters? Would you tell people who attempted suicide that their experiences aren't relevant because they didn't succeed?
-
So why are you trying so hard to disqualify this guy's experience in trying to understand mass shooters? Would you tell people who attempted suicide that their experiences aren't relevant because they didn't succeed?
If one never follows thru with it, how valid are their experiences?
-
You claimed all mass shooters are psychopaths and we have gone in circles with you failing to ever support your hypothesis. That hypothesis rebutted nothing I said.
This whole time you have sought, for unknown reasons, to call into question what this guy said to Jordan Peterson. Not based on any real scientific argument rather just your assertion that someone who didn't complete his plan shouldn't count. Mind you Jordan Peterson is an accomplished psychologist with clinical experience and he thought the story worth sharing rather than suggesting his experiences didn't count.
So why are you trying so hard to disqualify this guy's experience in trying to understand mass shooters? Would you tell people who attempted suicide that their experiences aren't relevant because they didn't succeed?
Number one: his "experience" is irrelevant, because he never executed anyone.
Number two: compared to suicide victims, he has a better chance of surviving in order the share his experience, but he decided to not go through with it. That decision tells me he was never a mass shooter and will never be one. He's probably not a psychopath.
All the shooters that actually -- in reality -- committed mass murder are/were psychopaths. Anyone with a small amount of empathy for their victims would not do what they did. It's a simple formula. No empathy = psychopath. Empathy = not a psychopath.
-
If one never follows thru with it, how valid are their experiences?
I think they are still significant enough to spend time studying.
Inability to carry out a mass shooting does not mean one does not have the mental fortitude to do it.
While it is possible some were just pretended they were going to commit such an act, it cannot be concluded that failure to follow through means they weren't serious. I wouldn't say a depressed person's experiences were invalid just because they didn't go through with a suicide attempt.
-
Number one: his "experience" is irrelevant, because he never executed anyone.
I disagree. Would you say a depressed person's experiences are invalid because they didn't go through with a suicide attempt?
Number two: compared to suicide victims, he has a better chance of surviving in order the share his experience, but he decided to not go through with it. That decision tells me he was never a mass shooter and will never be one. He's probably not a psychopath.
I don't think that can be concluded based off that information. There are more than one reason a person may fail to complete such a plan than simply they weren't psychopaths. Inability to obtain a firearm, for example, or overcoming a depressed period, or circumstances changing.
All the shooters that actually -- in reality -- committed mass murder are/were psychopaths. Anyone with a small amount of empathy for their victims would not do what they did. It's a simple formula. No empathy = psychopath. Empathy = not a psychopath.
Ok, you can believe that but it isn't in the data on the subject.
-
I disagree. Would you say a depressed person's experiences are invalid because they didn't go through with a suicide attempt?
I don't think that can be concluded based off that information. There are more than one reason a person may fail to complete such a plan than simply they weren't psychopaths. Inability to obtain a firearm, for example, or overcoming a depressed period, or circumstances changing.
Ok, you can believe that but it isn't in the data on the subject.
Suicide attempts only target one person. Unless the person is going to commit mass murder in an attempt to go out in a blaze of glory, suicides and mass murderers are not the same. Trying to say ones attempt is the same as the other's "almost' is comparing apples to oranges. Just because an attempted suicide is worth "studying" doesn't mean an "almost" mass murderer is also worth studying. In other words, one tried and failed, but the other never even got to the starting line. Now, had he tried to shoot up a school and his gun jammed, he was stopped by someone, or he just couldn't get into the locked down facility when he arrived, then he would have been an "attempted", not an "almost." See the difference, or do i have to keep beating this dead horse until it's glue?
You said the "Almost shooter" made plans, gathered what he needed, and was prepared to kill. So, your hypothetical "couldn't obtain a firearm" condition fails to be relevant. Would someone planning to commit mass murder suddenly stop because they "woke up" from a period of depression? Would they let one avenue of obtaining a gun stop them, or would they try others? If they let depression drive them to kill others, then they were already in a psychopathic state -- which bolsters my claim. People don't hurt others because they are depressed. They hurt themselves. if they choose suicide by cop via mass murder, they were already psychopathic --they just needed the depression to push them to act on their unhealthy mental state.
"Circumstances changing" is a hole big enough to drive the Titanic through. Could you be any more ambiguous? Depression ending is "circumstances changing." Being unable to get a firearm is "Circumstances changing." Forgetting to set an alarm clock and sleeping through the entire school day is circumstances changing. ...
a
-
Suicide attempts only target one person. Unless the person is going to commit mass murder in an attempt to go out in a blaze of glory, suicides and mass murderers are not the same. Trying to say ones attempt is the same as the other's "almost' is comparing apples to oranges. Just because an attempted suicide is worth "studying" doesn't mean an "almost" mass murderer is also worth studying. In other words, one tried and failed, but the other never even got to the starting line. Now, had he tried to shoot up a school and his gun jammed, he was stopped by someone, or he just couldn't get into the locked down facility when he arrived, then he would have been an "attempted", not an "almost." See the difference, or do i have to keep beating this dead horse until it's glue?
You said the "Almost shooter" made plans, gathered what he needed, and was prepared to kill. So, your hypothetical "couldn't obtain a firearm" condition fails to be relevant. Would someone planning to commit mass murder suddenly stop because they "woke up" from a period of depression? Would they let one avenue of obtaining a gun stop them, or would they try others? If they let depression drive them to kill others, then they were already in a psychopathic state -- which bolsters my claim. People don't hurt others because they are depressed. They hurt themselves. if they choose suicide by cop via mass murder, they were already psychopathic --they just needed the depression to push them to act on their unhealthy mental state.
"Circumstances changing" is a hole big enough to drive the Titanic through. Could you be any more ambiguous? Depression ending is "circumstances changing." Being unable to get a firearm is "Circumstances changing." Forgetting to set an alarm clock and sleeping through the entire school day is circumstances changing. ...
a
I was not saying suicidal people are akin to mass shooters, I only used that example to address the question of whether going through with the act had any bearing on whether their accounts were accurate/useful for study. There is however a suicide element to mass shooters so I think it may be more applicable than you think.
I don't know where you draw the starting line. Certainly I would not equate a person who thinks of suicide or fantasizes about mass shootings to someone who actually attempts the act but things are not that clearly delineated. Someone could be standing at the edge of a tall building or could have the gun at school, about to go through with it, but then back down last second. There was one guy who had everything in place but apparently decided to just commit suicide instead of taking others with him.
The guy in this interview had everything in place and was only waiting on the gun to be delivered. That seems like a very relevant aspect. Would someone planning to commit mass murder wake up? I don't see why not, they can have epiphanies, they can have friends who come to the rescue, etc.
You use this reasoning that if someone did X they were psychopathic but that just isn't supported by the data. You say people who didn't attempt don't count because they didn't couldn't bring themselves to go through with it but then people who did attempt/succeed you say their story doesn't count because they could be lying about their motives. You are sticking to your preconceived notion and finding a way of discarding anything that doesn't fit.
To be fair you could make the argument that mass shooters sometimes demonstrate certain traits/behaviors which are consistent with psychopathy but that doesn't mean they are all psychopaths and summarizing their actions as just those of a psychopath are of limited use in addressing the issue of mass shootings.
-
(1) I was not saying suicidal people are akin to mass shooters, I only used that example to address the question of whether going through with the act had any bearing on whether their accounts were accurate/useful for study. There is however a suicide element to mass shooters so I think it may be more applicable than you think.
(2) I don't know where you draw the starting line. Certainly I would not equate a person who thinks of suicide or fantasizes about mass shootings to someone who actually attempts the act but things are not that clearly delineated. Someone could be standing at the edge of a tall building or could have the gun at school, about to go through with it, but then back down last second. There was one guy who had everything in place but apparently decided to just commit suicide instead of taking others with him.
The guy in this interview had everything in place and was only waiting on the gun to be delivered. That seems like a very relevant aspect. Would someone planning to commit mass murder wake up? I don't see why not, they can have epiphanies, they can have friends who come to the rescue, etc.
You use this reasoning that if someone did X they were psychopathic but that just isn't supported by the data. You say people who didn't attempt don't count because they didn't couldn't bring themselves to go through with it but then people who did attempt/succeed you say their story doesn't count because they could be lying about their motives. You are sticking to your preconceived notion and finding a way of discarding anything that doesn't fit.
To be fair (3) you could make the argument that mass shooters sometimes demonstrate certain traits/behaviors which are consistent with psychopathy but that doesn't mean they are all psychopaths and summarizing their actions as just those of a psychopath are of limited use in addressing the issue of mass shootings.
(1) Yeah. Your analogies haven't gotten any better -- and neither have your examples meant to address a small detail rather than the overall picture.
(2) I told you. If one attempts suicide, they started -- commenced -- began the act. They either failed, were stopped (rushed to ER?), didn't really want to die (attention seeking) or they changed their mind. Nevertheless, they started to end their life. Same for a shooter. They planned, prepared, and started their attack. They either succeeded, failed or stopped/were stopped. There's no "almost" in "attempted." Do you want that glue in quart or gallon containers? :wacko:
(3) There's a major difference between "exhibiting traits" and psychopathic behavior. I think I asked, but you probably didn't answer: have you ever watched the series, Signs of a Psychopath? Each case is analyzed by experts in the field of aberrant behavior including psychopathy. Although not every person demonstrated every single behavior one associates with a psychopath, they absolutely exhibited enough to be diagnosed as one. Not everyone who's depressed gambles away their life savings, turns to alcohol or drugs, or starts contemplating suicide -- but depression can (and does) manifest in those and many other destructive or out-of-character behaviors and actions. It's insufficient to look at empathy alone as a marker for psychopathy, but since it's the one trait nearly all psychopaths share, it would be wrong to ignore it as an indicator.
I'm discarding nothing. I'm simply sticking to my understanding that all mass murderers are psychopaths. You say I'm dismissing your arguments, but your arguments have yet to prove what I said is wrong. Don't whine that I don't like your arguments. Get better data and facts, and maybe your arguments will be good enough for me to like. :geekdanc:
-
20 Signs of a Psychopath: Traits & Characteristics
Antisocial personality disorder is the underlying condition that drives psychopathy
and is among the most difficult mental health issues to treat. Research suggests
that psychopaths rarely seek treatment on their own and that when they are forced
into treatment, it usually does not lead to long-term improvements or changes.5 In
fact, some studies comparing treated and untreated psychopaths found that treatment
increases the likelihood of crime and violence in those with a history of these behaviors.
https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-psychopath/
#Science!
#Objectivity
#Research
#Facts
-
#nuance
20 Signs of a Psychopath: Traits & Characteristics
https://www.choosingtherapy.com/signs-of-a-psychopath/
#Science!
#Objectivity
#Research
#Facts
-
(1) Yeah. Your analogies haven't gotten any better -- and neither have your examples meant to address a small detail rather than the overall picture.
Good analogy or not, it still makes my point good enough that you cannot just discount the experiences of someone who didn't complete a mass shooting as irrelevant or lacking value.
(2) I told you. If one attempts suicide, they started -- commenced -- began the act. They either failed, were stopped (rushed to ER?), didn't really want to die (attention seeking) or they changed their mind. Nevertheless, they started to end their life. Same for a shooter. They planned, prepared, and started their attack. They either succeeded, failed or stopped/were stopped. There's no "almost" in "attempted." Do you want that glue in quart or gallon containers? :wacko:
You are nitpicking word choice here, it seems, with the intention of discounting what people like this man had to say. That is not a genuine attempt to try and understand mass shooters.
(3) There's a major difference between "exhibiting traits" and psychopathic behavior. I think I asked, but you probably didn't answer: have you ever watched the series, Signs of a Psychopath? Each case is analyzed by experts in the field of aberrant behavior including psychopathy. Although not every person demonstrated every single behavior one associates with a psychopath, they absolutely exhibited enough to be diagnosed as one. Not everyone who's depressed gambles away their life savings, turns to alcohol or drugs, or starts contemplating suicide -- but depression can (and does) manifest in those and many other destructive or out-of-character behaviors and actions. It's insufficient to look at empathy alone as a marker for psychopathy, but since it's the one trait nearly all psychopaths share, it would be wrong to ignore it as an indicator.
I'm discarding nothing. I'm simply sticking to my understanding that all mass murderers are psychopaths. You say I'm dismissing your arguments, but your arguments have yet to prove what I said is wrong. Don't whine that I don't like your arguments. Get better data and facts, and maybe your arguments will be good enough for me to like. :geekdanc:
Bottom line is that you said all mass shooters are psychopaths but have not found any evidence to back up that statement. I checked myself and I couldn't find anything to support your statement either. You are making assumptions about what is going on inside the heads of mass shooters and calling them psychopaths based on that. That isn't science and it isn't helpful to the issue
-
Good analogy or not, it still makes my point good enough that you cannot just discount the experiences of someone who didn't complete a mass shooting as irrelevant or lacking value.
You are nitpicking word choice here, it seems, with the intention of discounting what people like this man had to say. That is not a genuine attempt to try and understand mass shooters.
Bottom line is that you said all mass shooters are psychopaths but have not found any evidence to back up that statement. I checked myself and I couldn't find anything to support your statement either. You are making assumptions about what is going on inside the heads of mass shooters and calling them psychopaths based on that. That isn't science and it isn't helpful to the issue
I guess watching an edited YouTube video of an interview is "Science" now.
-
I guess watching an edited YouTube video of an interview is "Science" now.
You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews.
-
You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews.
You seem to be unaware that i am an actual scientist.
-
You seem to be unaware that i am an actual scientist.
Computer science was it? I am sure you are more than competent in your field but it isn't transferring to this area.
-
Computer science was it? I am sure you are more than competent in your field but it isn't transferring to this area.
You missed the point.
"You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews." was your attempt at lecturing me on research.
I learned how to research before Google or Yahoo! existed. No matter the field, the ability to actually do research is often the same.
But, you'd have to be an expert to understand it fully.
:geekdanc:
-
You missed the point.
"You seem to be unaware of how qualitative research is done. This type of research is done by in depth interviews." was your attempt at lecturing me on research.
I learned how to research before Google or Yahoo! existed. No matter the field, the ability to actually do research is often the same.
But, you'd have to be an expert to understand it fully.
:geekdanc:
You are the one who dismissed qualitative research by saying it is an edited youtube video but now you are saying you know all about scientific research. So which is it? Are qualitative interviews part of the scientific method or not?
-
You are the one who dismissed qualitative research by saying it is an edited youtube video but now you are saying you know all about scientific research. So which is it? Are qualitative interviews part of the scientific method or not?
Not when the interview is with someone who never actually engaged in the act being investigated -- i.e. school shootings.
Now, if the purpose was to interview people who claim to have been planning to shoot up a school and chickened out, then the focus of the video should have been on that and not how it may or may not be representative of how actual shooters "feel."
Extrapolating from one person's account doesn't give an ounce of insight into how another person felt. Feelings are not universal.
-
Not when the interview is with someone who never actually engaged in the act being investigated -- i.e. school shootings.
Here we go full circle again. If they didn't go through with the act then they don't count to you. But if they did go through with the act then you don't trust them so they still don't count to you. You are finding reasons to justify not believing what he and others like him have said, that is not science. I just can't understand what is leading to this bias you are exhibiting.
Now, if the purpose was to interview people who claim to have been planning to shoot up a school and chickened out, then the focus of the video should have been on that and not how it may or may not be representative of how actual shooters "feel."
If you watched the interview you would know that he didn't say anything to indicate he chickened out. Do you not even give Jordan Peterson any credit?
Extrapolating from one person's account doesn't give an ounce of insight into how another person felt. Feelings are not universal.
Nope but it is still of value, qualitative study is still important and useful even though it is not quantitative.
-
Here we go full circle again. If they didn't go through with the act then they don't count to you. But if they did go through with the act then you don't trust them so they still don't count to you. You are finding reasons to justify not believing what he and others like him have said, that is not science. I just can't understand what is leading to this bias you are exhibiting.
If you watched the interview you would know that he didn't say anything to indicate he chickened out. Do you not even give Jordan Peterson any credit?
Nope but it is still of value, qualitative study is still important and useful even though it is not quantitative.
And there you go -- making an already too long thread even longer repeating everything you already said.
And it won't make your story better no matter how many times you blurt it out.
-
And there you go -- making an already too long thread even longer repeating everything you already said.
And it won't make your story better no matter how many times you blurt it out.
Sorry, I tried leading the horse to water, but he doesn't want to drink. Perhaps its time to let the stuborn horse be.
-
Sorry, I tried leading the horse to water, but he doesn't want to drink. Perhaps its time to let the stuborn horse be.
Hahhahahhaha.oh, the irony
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Hahhahahhaha.oh, the irony
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You can't teach someone who thinks he already knows everything.
And the appropriate phrase is: You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
He just wants to be right even when his opinion is diametrically opposite of right.
-
He just wants to be right even when his opinion is diametrically opposite of right.
Before you make such claims of me perhaps you should prove your premise first (without circular reasoning)
-
Before you make such claims of me perhaps you should prove your premise first (without circular reasoning)
Agree to disagree.
:geekdanc:
-
Before you make such claims of me perhaps you should prove your premise first (without circular reasoning)
Hahhahhaa
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk