12 killed, 50 wounded at Aurora movie theater

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

...and years from now CNN or Dateline will drag you out of your cozy little room with bars and let you spew out all your feelings about how you're now a changed man since you found the lord.
 
Sevenseas said:
I'm not sure how one can believe something without acknowledging it either, although I provided possible explanations earlier, such as advocating a weird position just for the sake of doing so, or of not understanding language, etc. To me, an angry, resentful response towards X, because X committed some act, already communicates a "should" or "ought"-rule. If such a rule is not in mind or not meant to be communicated, other emotional responses would make more sense, such as feeling angry but angry in general and not towards any agent; or feeling general sadness.
Click to expand...

Hm... I suppose I just see it more as anger being a natural response to a perceived attack (using attack here very loosely). In theory something along the lines of: negative feelings warn us of something bad, like pain indicating damage. An example of an emotional equivalent could be anxiety in anticipation of pain itself - or less drastic things, like embarrassment. Things like anger serve as an incentive to do something about it, for example fighting back against an attacker (or with anxiety, avoiding an unpleasant situation). It really doesn't make sense to me that I would feel 'generally' angry (over an attack) by default. I may not consciously know who or what made me angry sometimes, but I guess in a sense it could still serve that purpose because if I was really ****** off I would be more likely to attempt to repel any perceived attack against me, physical or emotional. Which might explain the occasional anger directed toward objects, like the stone in my shoe - it can't logically be responsible for anything, but continued discomfort still triggers the 'do something about this' feeling.

Normally though, I would think being angry like that would risk being fairly counter-productive... potentially making the situation worse by causing me to overreact to small things. So I think the case of being angry at a specific target makes more sense there, like if I poke something for a long time and it bites me. The response in that case is accurately being delivered to the cause of the creature's irritation.* Money is pretty far removed from that as it only indirectly does anything useful, but I can see why I would value it emotionally in that scenario. Stealing a thing I hardly care about would get much less reaction, if any, which is lucky since being very angry then could be more detrimental than whatever eventual anticipated effect bothers me about the loss of money.

I guess it would be possible to phrase that in terms of a rule, but I don't think that would lead me to the sort of 'moral compass' people talk about some murderers and such lacking. In the lack of this mechanism, (er... thing) it seems one would not feel at all. Although I suppose it might be that it was never correct to imply the process/thing/system was missing to begin with, and when people say that one lacks it they just mean that it works differently in that person to what is normal.

*(On the other hand, it might be that I'm gigantic and menacing and probably better to run away from than provoke, in which case the thing in question might feel fear instead. But it probably would have done that already before poking, if it was going to.)

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

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

Well, I think I get the part about what it's made up of... though, I'm not sure by what process it would actually become a moral from these things.
 
jeneticallymodified said:
sometimes a comment like that is much more of a cry for help, than it is macho bragging.
Click to expand...
Your point is well made and I hope you realize that my comments aren't directed at you specifically because I know you aren't defending his actions... but generally when something like this happens I start to get a little peeved when folks start dragging the psychobabble out. To be honest, I really just don't care what drove him to do what he did. The people I care about in life are those who suffer through abuse and mental illness and don't grow up to become mass murderers. From a clinical standpoint I understand the value in terms of preventing something like this from happening again, but I won't ever feel sympathy for the man. Not everything can be explained, and sometimes there are just bad people who do bad things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
Digger said:
Your point is well made and I hope you realize that my comments aren't directed at you specifically because I know you aren't defending his actions... but generally when something like this happens I start to get a little peeved when folks start dragging the psychobabble out. To be honest, I really just don't care what drove him to do what he did. The people I care about in life are those who suffer through abuse and mental illness and don't grow up to become mass murderers. From a clinical standpoint I understand the value in terms of preventing something like this from happening again, but I won't ever feel sympathy for the man. Not everything can be explained, and sometimes there are just bad people who do bad things.
Click to expand...

and sometimes seemingly normal people with great potential, utterly lose their minds and do completely unfathomably horrible things. really, i'm just very glad that i've never been where they are.

i don't think i'd stop feeling sad about what happened to somebody because they crossed the line between lashing out angrily and physically beating somebody once, to actually causing a person to die (perhaps in a much more detached manner, much more rapidly).

similarly, i can't put the line in between killing one person, or two, or three.... it's not a timeframe thing, its a sanity thing to me. i don't think you can really be totally sane, and proceed to beat the crap out of somebody- let alone take a bunch of people out. it just doesn't make any sense to me.

either way, once they're headed towards committing that kind of violence, i consider somebody 'broken'- or just very badly damaged... i can't help but pity that. :(
 
jeneticallymodified said:
similarly, i can't put the line in between killing one person, or two, or three.... it's not a timeframe thing, its a sanity thing to me. i don't think you can really be totally sane, and proceed to beat the crap out of somebody- let alone take a bunch of people out. it just doesn't make any sense to me.

. :(
Click to expand...
i disagree.

if someone did something to my wife or kids or seriously disrespected me, i could beat the crap out of them. and that wouldn't make me insane at all. it would make me 'angry'
 
Yeah I'm pretty sure it's possible to do either or both of those and be sane. Not that I think it was in this case, but still.
 
I hate to say it, but if the choice was between a violent, psychopathic person and an innocent victim, I'd probably be quite good at harming the psychopath to the point of serious injury or death. It's just a matter of my size (I'm taller and larger than most people) and intelligence (I understand how people can die).

I'd feel horrible afterwards, especially since I think such behavior stems from deep mental illness. But I wouldn't hesitate, especially if it was a person I loved. But I'd understand if my victim's family hated me afterwards. Gawd, I wouldn't like myself afterwards. Mental illness, even when it leads to violent behavior, isn't the fault of the person who is mentally ill. But I'll protect those around me.
 
Alice-Bee said:
See this is why Marilyn Manson came up with his stage name.
The media can put someone like Marilyn Monroe and Charles Manson on the cover of Life(I believe it was) Magazine. Celebritising murderers...and yes Digger I agree, if he hears about it he will be very happy with that nickname.:no:
Click to expand...

Wait... Charles Manson, obviously... but Marilyn Monroe is a murderer?
 
Well, perhaps she was very good at it. Wait... can you be a murderer if you aren't caught and found guilty? Or are you just a killer? Hmm...
 
FortyTwo said:
Wait... Charles Manson, obviously... but Marilyn Monroe is a murderer?
Click to expand...
:dismay:
Honestly...dont be so silly.
Marilyn Monroe was NOT a murderer. It is implyed she is the celebrity. But my point, well Brain Warners point, is that Life Magazine put both genuine celebs like Marilyn Monroe on the cover aswell as a giving a murderer like Charlie Manson fame by putting him on the cover at some point too.. Although he didnt techincally kill anyone.
 
FortyTwo said:
Even though I'm not tired, I'm still incredibly confused about this. Did I read it wrong? Is there some conspiracy that I don't know about?

I need to know!
Click to expand...

Marilyn Manson (The band) all took their names by combining one part cultural pop icon and one part serial killer.
Daisy Berkowitz
Olivia Newton Bundy
Madonna Wayne Gacy
Twiggy Ramirez

From wikipedia:
The stage names used by each member were representative of a concept the band considered central: the dichotomy of good and evil, and the existence of both, together, in every whole. "Marilyn Monroe had a dark side", explained Manson in his autobiography, "just as Charles Manson has a good, intelligent side".[18] Images of both Monroe and Manson, as well as of others equally famous and notorious, were common in the band's early promotional materials.
 
Dedalus said:
Marilyn Manson (The band) all took their names by combining one part cultural pop icon and one part serial killer.
Daisy Berkowitz
Olivia Newton Bundy
Madonna Wayne Gacy
Twiggy Ramirez

From wikipedia:
The stage names used by each member were representative of a concept the band considered central: the dichotomy of good and evil, and the existence of both, together, in every whole. "Marilyn Monroe had a dark side", explained Manson in his autobiography, "just as Charles Manson has a good, intelligent side".[18] Images of both Monroe and Manson, as well as of others equally famous and notorious, were common in the band's early promotional materials.
Click to expand...

When I learnt WHY Manson (the band) called themselves what they did. I had a huge respect for his intelligence.

But this is getting waaaaaay off topic.

I read that the woman who lost her child and baby has now been told shes likely to never walk again...:no:
 
Alice-Bee said:
:dismay:
Honestly...dont be so silly.
Marilyn Monroe was NOT a murderer. It is implyed she is the celebrity. But my point, well Brain Warners point, is that Life Magazine put both genuine celebs like Marilyn Monroe on the cover aswell as a giving a murderer like Charlie Manson fame by putting him on the cover at some point too.. Although he didnt techincally kill anyone.
Click to expand...

I thought I may have misinterpreted it. :p I was tired, okay?
 

Similar threads

B
The New Vegan
Replies
0
Views
550
Introduce Yourself
bjaugust63
B
R
  • Locked
Pit bulls and other controversial dogs
Replies
31
Views
3K
Animals
GreenHugeBig
GreenHugeBig
C
US Why Should We Become Vegan?
Replies
29
Views
4K
Philosophy
blackeyesnail25
B
Oluwamuyiwa
We are slaves to pleasure
Replies
29
Views
3K
General
Col
Col
ExistentialVegan
4 Ways To Practice Nonviolence as a Consumer
Replies
7
Views
890
Philosophy
ExistentialVegan
ExistentialVegan
Top Bottom
Back