Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[Bendira]

Hmmm he shoot several members of the Federal government and judiciary and likes vids portraying the burning of the flag of the Federal government of the United states.
Hmm what kind of people are like that?

I've burned an "American" flag. Does that make me a mass murdering psycho?

Yes! That nylon contained the souls of every American soldier in history who has laid down their life in the line of imperialist duty! By burning it you are burning their souls!

[Grave_n_idle]

So... people are responsible for their actions. Unless someone or something diminishes that responsibility.

Nope. People are either responsible or not. People may or may not figure it out later.

False conflict. They are either responsible or not - I'm not addressing what others think.

So - if they are not 'responsible', what factors might explain that?

And which mitigating factors mitigate responsibility, whilst not actually removing it?


And then, if you can, show how those factors can be demonstrated in this case. That's the only point at which this argument needs to deal with 'what others think' - once you've ascertained whether or not there WAS responsibility.

Not at all, I was trying to use reference points to show the flaw in the assumption (or apparent assumption) that someone must be 'nuts' just because they killed a bunch of people.

Those are some pretty silly reference points.

Tell you what, why don't you give an example or two of times when a lone gunman shot up a crowd of regular people and wasn't nuts? You might be able to, but it's not gonna make it less reasonable to think a guy who does it probably has a screw loose.

A sort of an inverse appeal to popularity? Or is it an appeal to ridicule?

Only a third of 'Americans' supported revolution - so the majority opposed the violence. We are back to whether or not 'sanity' is defined by popularity. One person can be the only sane person in a crowd, can't they?

[Nobel Hobos]

Where did you hear that? I heard it was on his list of books he'd read, but that doesn't necessarily make it his favourite.

Did I miss something?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
Books:
I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

The novels are good choices for children or teens. I'm particularly saddened to see The Phantom Toll Booth in the list, because as a child I loved it very much, and I haven't heard it mentioned since. I also loved the Alice books, and the several others which are on school reading-lists, but they are widely acknowledged.

To Kill A Mockingbird is particularly mainstream as a set text in school, amiright? I'm seeing a kid who actually enjoyed school, and took his exclusion from it very badly. As one old guy to another, doesn't this list of books seem like what an intelligent teen would like (even mein kampf and the communist manifesto) ... and isn't there a lack of further reading which you'd expect that kid to have found by the age of 22?

I'm thinking ... maybe when the school told him to Show Cause why he should be allowed to attend, they should also have referred him to free legal services to appeal that decision, and to free counselling services to help him comply. This looks to me like the reading list of a decent kid, maybe a bit off track due to drugs but nothing there which I wouldn't want a (hypothetical) kid of mine to read.

Noting that I've been critical of you recently, and further noting that the post I'm replying to has not one word written by you, I ask your opinion on this: did his school let this kid down?

[Nobel Hobos]

One person can be the only sane person in a crowd, can't they?

For a while ... but if they stay in the insane crowd, well ...

[Bendira]

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
Books:
I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

The novels are good choices for children or teens. I'm particularly saddened to see The Phantom Toll Booth in the list, because as a child I loved it very much, and I haven't heard it mentioned since. I also loved the Alice books, and the several others which are on school reading-lists, but they are widely acknowledged.

To Kill A Mockingbird is particularly mainstream as a set text in school, amiright? I'm seeing a kid who actually enjoyed school, and took his exclusion from it very badly. As one old guy to another, doesn't this list of books seem like what an intelligent teen would like (even mein kampf and the communist manifesto) ... and isn't there a lack of further reading which you'd expect that kid to have found by the age of 22?

I'm thinking ... maybe when the school told him to Show Cause why he should be allowed to attend, they should also have referred him to free legal services to appeal that decision, and to free counselling services to help him comply. This looks to me like the reading list of a decent kid, maybe a bit off track due to drugs but nothing there which I wouldn't want a (hypothetical) kid of mine to read.

Noting that I've been critical of you recently, and further noting that the post I'm replying to has not one word written by you, I ask your opinion on this: did his school let this kid down?

I agree with what you have said here completely. I am getting ill seeing the news labeling him as a psychopath because he read the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Its an anti-intellectual stance that kids can't read these things without being insane.

[OrangeCats]

False conflict. They are either responsible or not - I'm not addressing what others think.

You have to address what others think, because that's all that matters when deciding whether the guy is gonna live in a mental hospital or a prison. Was he really crazy? Was Dahmer? Was John Hinckley Jr? Probably, but one went to prison and the other went to a mental institution. Based on what? What others decided.

The kind of analysis you're looking for is for lawyers and judges and anyone else watching the trial on Court TV.

A sort of an inverse appeal to popularity? Or is it an appeal to ridicule?

It could be an appeal to putting your money where your mouth is.

I'm not the one comparing a shooting spree in AZ to the American Revolution. It's really an absurd comparison.

[OrangeCats]

One person can be the only sane person in a crowd, can't they?

For a while ... but if they stay in the insane crowd, well ...

Then they wind up with a really high post count.

[Grave_n_idle]

False conflict. They are either responsible or not - I'm not addressing what others think.

You have to address what others think, because that's all that matters when deciding whether the guy is gonna live in a mental hospital or a prison. Was he really crazy? Was Dahmer? Was John Hinckley Jr? Probably, but one went to prison and the other went to a mental institution. Based on what? What others decided.

The kind of analysis you're looking for is for lawyers and judges and anyone else watching the trial on Court TV.

On the contrary. What I'm actually objecting to is people writing this off as 'the guy is obviously nuts'.

Whether or not he can be proven insane is a separate but connected issue, that only matters in the trial and judgement process.

A sort of an inverse appeal to popularity? Or is it an appeal to ridicule?

It could be an appeal to putting your money where your mouth is.

I'm not the one comparing a shooting spree in AZ to the American Revolution. It's really an absurd comparison.

I didnt 'compare' them, either. I didn't say 'shooting a congresswoman, a nine year old girl, a judge, and a few other people is like the American Revolution' - I merely examined the concept that violence - even killing - is not intrinsically connected to (in)sanity. Indeed, sometimes it is lauded.

My question now is whether you really don't understand the point, or whether you're pretending to be obtuse as some kind of tactical play.

[OrangeCats]

On the contrary. What I'm actually objecting to is people writing this off as 'the guy is obviously nuts'.

Why do you object to that?

My question now is whether you really don't understand the point, or whether you're pretending to be obtuse as some kind of tactical play.

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

[Fartsniffage]

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

6 people are dead, one of them a child.

How seriously should we be taking this?

[OrangeCats]

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

6 people are dead, one of them a child.

How seriously should we be taking this?

There's a pretty big difference between the incident and this thread, wouldn't you say?

[Nekronia]

Congresswomen from Arizona was shot in the head along with three staff members. it is unclear whether she is dead or alive.

Eeeehhhhmmmmmm.....

She was shot in the head. I think she's dead...

[Laerod]

Congresswomen from Arizona was shot in the head along with three staff members. it is unclear whether she is dead or alive.

Eeeehhhhmmmmmm.....

She was shot in the head. I think she's dead... :p

She's not.

[Linux and the X]

Congresswomen from Arizona was shot in the head along with three staff members. it is unclear whether she is dead or alive.

Eeeehhhhmmmmmm.....

She was shot in the head. I think she's dead...

And yet if you'd been paying attention to the thread, you'd know that she is alive, though in critical condition.

[New new nebraska]

Quite sad. To address the sentiments of page 90 I don't think he shot up a crowd because he was left or right but because he was insane (sorry Grave). From what I've heard yes he was somewhat to the right but that doesn't make them, or their ideology responsible at all. To address his sanity: no, I do not have a psychological profile of him but honestly what clear thinking sane persons shoots up a crowd regardless of incensed they are over politics. Leading into the American Revolution point, that was a declared war against an army, not one guy shooting into a crowd. That is more akin to the Boston Massacre.

[Nekronia]

Eeeehhhhmmmmmm.....

She was shot in the head. I think she's dead...

And yet if you'd been paying attention to the thread, you'd know that she is alive, though in critical condition.

I'm not gonna read 90 pages of democrat-spasms.

[OrangeCats]

I'm not gonna read 90 pages of democrat-spasms.

Or 1 page of Yahoo news?

[Nekronia]

I'm not gonna read 90 pages of democrat-spasms.

Or 1 page of Yahoo news?

I don't feel like reading it. I just wanna half-ass comment on everything.

[Grandlife]

Why should the average person give a shit? 99 percent of people didn't know she existed before she got shot. It's not as if the patrisan hate speech will go down, or that a Federal gun control law will go into effect. So why even care? Nothing will change. So a few people died? Big fucking deal people die every second.

[You-Gi-Owe]

I hear his favorite book was "The Communist Manifesto", so he's obviously a "fill in the blank".

Where did you hear that? I heard it was on his list of books he'd read, but that doesn't necessarily make it his favourite.

Did I miss something?

Loughner and the Violent Rhetoric in the "Communist Manifesto"
By Philip Klein on 1.8.11 @ 8:39PM

Liberals who have attempted to exploit the tragedy in Arizona for political gain by trying to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting should be ashamed of themselves. At this point, we have more reason to blame the revolutionary writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for what happened today. To clarify my intentions in making this point, I'm not trying to blame Marx and Engles. As I noted in an earlier post, it's far too early to speculate on the shooters' motives, and it's hard to make out any coherent set of ideological beliefs from his ramblings. But that hasn't stopped the left from pointing fingers at Palin. In the absence of any evidence, many liberals have settled on the nebulous arguement that Palin helped to contribute to a generalized climate of inflamatory political rhetoric, which made somebody who was insane turn to violence. From a pure journalistic perspective, there is absolutely no evidence that alleged shooter Loughner had ever seen Palin's famed target map, let alone that he was motivated by it. Yet in a YouTube page believed to be created by Loughner -- and widely cited in the media as such -- the alleged shooter actually names the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books and, unlike the subliminal message liberals attribute to Palin's map, Marx and Engles explicitly advocated political violence. Below, I've compiled some examples from the Manifesto (my emphasis in bold).

CHAPTER I

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians....

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

CHAPTER II


“The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”

“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

CHAPTER III

(The context of the following is a criticism of the approach of socialists --PK)

“Hence, They reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

Chapter IV

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite”

[Marsini]

Where did you hear that? I heard it was on his list of books he'd read, but that doesn't necessarily make it his favourite.

Did I miss something?

Loughner and the Violent Rhetoric in the "Communist Manifesto"
By Philip Klein on 1.8.11 @ 8:39PM

Liberals who have attempted to exploit the tragedy in Arizona for political gain by trying to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting should be ashamed of themselves. At this point, we have more reason to blame the revolutionary writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for what happened today. To clarify my intentions in making this point, I'm not trying to blame Marx and Engles. As I noted in an earlier post, it's far too early to speculate on the shooters' motives, and it's hard to make out any coherent set of ideological beliefs from his ramblings. But that hasn't stopped the left from pointing fingers at Palin. In the absence of any evidence, many liberals have settled on the nebulous arguement that Palin helped to contribute to a generalized climate of inflamatory political rhetoric, which made somebody who was insane turn to violence. From a pure journalistic perspective, there is absolutely no evidence that alleged shooter Loughner had ever seen Palin's famed target map, let alone that he was motivated by it. Yet in a YouTube page believed to be created by Loughner -- and widely cited in the media as such -- the alleged shooter actually names the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books and, unlike the subliminal message liberals attribute to Palin's map, Marx and Engles explicitly advocated political violence. Below, I've compiled some examples from the Manifesto (my emphasis in bold).

CHAPTER I

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians....

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

CHAPTER II


“The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”

“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

CHAPTER III

(The context of the following is a criticism of the approach of socialists --PK)

“Hence, They reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

Chapter IV

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite”

It is commonly accepted that Communism advocates violence against established governments. How is this relevant? I call bullshit as I have been doing to every individual who attempted to pin this on Palin. The man was a wacko or possibly an agent from Djbouti. Do you have any evidence to disprove my claims?

[Gauthier]

Where did you hear that? I heard it was on his list of books he'd read, but that doesn't necessarily make it his favourite.

Did I miss something?

Loughner and the Violent Rhetoric in the "Communist Manifesto"
By Philip Klein on 1.8.11 @ 8:39PM

Liberals who have attempted to exploit the tragedy in Arizona for political gain by trying to connect Sarah Palin to the shooting should be ashamed of themselves. At this point, we have more reason to blame the revolutionary writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for what happened today. To clarify my intentions in making this point, I'm not trying to blame Marx and Engles. As I noted in an earlier post, it's far too early to speculate on the shooters' motives, and it's hard to make out any coherent set of ideological beliefs from his ramblings. But that hasn't stopped the left from pointing fingers at Palin. In the absence of any evidence, many liberals have settled on the nebulous arguement that Palin helped to contribute to a generalized climate of inflamatory political rhetoric, which made somebody who was insane turn to violence. From a pure journalistic perspective, there is absolutely no evidence that alleged shooter Loughner had ever seen Palin's famed target map, let alone that he was motivated by it. Yet in a YouTube page believed to be created by Loughner -- and widely cited in the media as such -- the alleged shooter actually names the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books and, unlike the subliminal message liberals attribute to Palin's map, Marx and Engles explicitly advocated political violence. Below, I've compiled some examples from the Manifesto (my emphasis in bold).

CHAPTER I

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians....

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

CHAPTER II


“The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”

“If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”

CHAPTER III

(The context of the following is a criticism of the approach of socialists --PK)

“Hence, They reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

Chapter IV

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite”

Loughner's been agreed upon as an unstable nut, and here you are still trying to conjure the FOXNews Magic to make him a Liberal Gunman. Cute.

[Gauthier]

It is commonly accepted that Communism advocates violence against established governments. How is this relevant? I call bullshit as I have been doing to every individual who attempted to pin this on Palin. The man was a wacko or possibly an agent from Djbouti. Do you have any evidence to disprove my claims?

Nobody gives a shit about Djbouti except you.

[Grave_n_idle]

On the contrary. What I'm actually objecting to is people writing this off as 'the guy is obviously nuts'.

Why do you object to that?

Because there's no evidence compelling enough. Yet.

We shouldn't leap to conclusions.

My question now is whether you really don't understand the point, or whether you're pretending to be obtuse as some kind of tactical play.

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

'Not clowning around' is being 'too serious'?

[Geniasis]

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

You realize that a woman got shot in the head, right?