Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#171

Post by heyitsnick »

runako wrote: post #159
mbell wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no list of 'no apparent motive recent shootings' on wikipedia i'm afraid, so you will have to do a little leg-work yourself. There is a pretty decent and much more relevant list mentioned in another comment in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

It's worth noting that this list has notable omissions like Columbine. I'm not sure about the accuracy of the rest of it, but omitting such recent notables makes me question the utility of the list.

"highschool shootings" and other categories have for some reason been separated out of the regional list and put in to their own categories. So as I say, there doesn't seem to be a decent list already compiled.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#172

Post by jorahmormont »

Slightly offtopic, I read a comment somewhere that asked what would have happened if the killer had been an Arab. It is interesting. When the killer is one of our own, we are able to quickly switch off group-think and acknowledge that the killer was insane. In contrast, when the killer is of an outgroup, we instantly assign group blame and then exact group retribution.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#173

Post by mikeash »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #166
mikeash wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that the second amendment appears to be fundamentally different, in terms of human rights, from the rest. There are a lot of good arguments as to why allowing free speech, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizures, and other such things is a good thing in general, and are fundamental issues of human rights and freedoms. There are substantially fewer arguments as to why gun ownership is important to fr…

The important thing to realize is that there are people who would ask the same questions and harbor the same doubts about those other amendments that you have about the second. The second may seem like the odd man out to you, but that's to you, not to everyone. Others may well (and in fact do) believe that others are the odd man out.

I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#174

Post by mbell »

runako wrote: post #159
mbell wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no list of 'no apparent motive recent shootings' on wikipedia i'm afraid, so you will have to do a little leg-work yourself. There is a pretty decent and much more relevant list mentioned in another comment in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

It's worth noting that this list has notable omissions like Columbine. I'm not sure about the accuracy of the rest of it, but omitting such recent notables makes me question the utility of the list.

Columbine is on there. They break it out into the sections, its under the school massacre section. It's listed by city as Littleton, CO as I don't believe Columbine is actually an incorporated entity, just an area of land.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#175

Post by eavc »

Alex3917 wrote: post #80
rauljara wrote: post #49

"Psychologists describe depression as anger turned inward." Correction: Freud described depression as anger turned inwards. Specifically, he described anger at external forces (your mother, etc.) turned inwards. In his view, the only way to get rid of depression would be to allow this anger to express itself against the actual external force. This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (wh…

"This is very, very far away from the majority view of modern psychology (which has dismissed the vast majority of Freudian thought), but I still hear it repeated all the damn time." Actually a lot of therapists still use personal mythology construction as a therapy tool, which is very similar to Freud's idea of directing anger outward in the sense that both creating a new identity for the person or strengthening the…

He wasn't talking about what "a lot of therapists" do but rather the modern understanding of depression and its causes and solutions.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#176

Post by evan_ »

coenhyde wrote: post #30
arturadib wrote: post #26

Think outside the box. I've lived in the US for 10 years, and I follow plenty of world news. It is clear that Columbine-like shootings are (mostly) an American phenomenon. [1] So what is it so special about the US that makes this a recurring problem? Is it poor parenting, without much communication? Is it societal pressure, i.e. Mr Popular vs Mr Loser? Is it easy access to guns? Is it the disproportionate amount of m…

I know American's do not like to hear this but I am of the opinion that it's easy access to guns which is the cause of these mass murders. Now that Australia has gun control, the crazy's just stab a few people. It's very hard to kill so many people with a knife. If you take away easy access to guns then sure the hard criminals will still have guns but the wannabe criminals and the lunatics will do less damage.

> It's very hard to kill so many people with a knife.

The Rwandan genocide was largely carried out with machetes.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#177

Post by waterlesscloud »

mikeash wrote: post #173
waterlesscloud wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important thing to realize is that there are people who would ask the same questions and harbor the same doubts about those other amendments that you have about the second. The second may seem like the odd man out to you, but that's to you, not to everyone. Others may well (and in fact do) believe that others are the odd man out.

I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.

Well, no, actually, I don't. Since it's part of the Bill Of Rights, it's not on its supporters to show why it's a fundamental right, it's on its opponents to show why it isn't.

The whole point of those rights being in the Constitution is so that you don't have to endlessly justify those rights later.

And, again, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same to you. That really is an important part to grasp.

There are people who can make quite a strong case for restricting the First Amendment for reasons that have nothing to do with oppressing the people, but for reasons of protecting the fabric of society. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean their points are of lesser quality. It means that the damage to society is a price I'm willing to pay to enjoy the freedom that comes with it.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#178

Post by bbxiao1 »

mikeash wrote: post #173
waterlesscloud wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important thing to realize is that there are people who would ask the same questions and harbor the same doubts about those other amendments that you have about the second. The second may seem like the odd man out to you, but that's to you, not to everyone. Others may well (and in fact do) believe that others are the odd man out.

I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.

As a aside, I think the American founding fathers' views of human rights was more that anything and everything is a fundamental right whether it is free speech or, on the other extreme, murder. However, since people have banded to form "society", to join society, a person would have to give up certain rights, e.g. the right to murder. So, depending on where you stand with respect to human rights, who should defend the right to bear arms, a person or a government?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#179

Post by eurleif »

bbxiao1 wrote: post #178
mikeash wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.

As a aside, I think the American founding fathers' views of human rights was more that anything and everything is a fundamental right whether it is free speech or, on the other extreme, murder. However, since people have banded to form "society", to join society, a person would have to give up certain rights, e.g. the right to murder. So, depending on where you stand with respect to human rights, who should defend th…

What's a right? Isn't it something that no one can murder you from doing (or in general, use force to stop you from doing)? If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#180

Post by lotharbot »

etherael wrote: post #15
lusr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you believe emotion is useless? I cannot think of any aspects of our psychology that are useless (they evolved for a reason). Negative emotions are fundamentally indicators of a cognitive dissonance and are absolutely invaluable in maintaining a healthy system of introspection. Your profile shows you're also a programmer so here's an analogy I use internally: negative emotions are part of a monitoring system b…

I believe emotion is useless because it is largely a distraction. By this I mean that if there are reasons other than emotional to take a course of action, the positive enforcement of emotion to push you in that direction is unnecessary. However, if there are no reasons other than emotional in order to undertake an action, that's a good indicator that the action is not a good path to take. This doesn't mean that an a…

> "I believe emotion is useless"

Some time ago, my wife suffered from an illness that nerfed her emotions. It was surprising just how much her ability to reason degraded.

Reasoning depends heavily upon emotional responses like feeling uncomfortable, surprised, curious, or frustrated by the data / facts / information. One with reduced emotions becomes disinterested; they simply stop caring about understanding. They stop caring enough to work through difficult problems. They don't care enough to search for better data or better ideas.

I would agree that it's unhealthy to be guided by emotion in the sense of "I feel this is true" or "I believe this because I want to". This sort of emotion is mostly a distraction from rationality. But it's entirely healthy to be guided by emotion in the sense of "I care about getting this right" or "I'm bothered by these details not fitting". Without that sort of emotion to push you into rationality, you end up settling for weak, halfhearted, and ultimately irrational explanations.

Post reply on HN