·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

The Virginia Tech Massacre.

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on April 17th, 2007, 7:05 am | Life
As one might expect, the on-line world has been buzzing pretty much non-stop since the news came out of the trouble at Blacksburg, VA.

I sampled a few items last night and found an interesting thing. The few folks who had made statements about the identity of the shooter seemed quite certain that it would turn out to be a member of the group they hated (or feared) the most. One Christian posted to alt.atheism that he was certain that the shooter would turn out to be one of those poor godless heathens who was finally giving in to his evil nature. An atheist hothead posted that he was dead certain that it had to be some fundy, Republican gun nut gone wild.

As is too often the case, everyone jumped to the most natural conclusion that their prejudices provided them. Myself, I have done my best to keep my prejudices in check and am determined to simply wait on the investigation to run its course and tell us what the facts are. There will be plenty of time to analyze those and seek lessons to be learned when they're finally released.
 
 
I was listening to a talk on NPR this afternoon as I was driving back to work from a doctor appointment. They were talking about the shooting there and ways it could have been prevented.

It seems that insane people can't be kept away from campuses due to the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I'm sorry, but this seems pretty stupid to me. Sure, mental disabilities of many sorts shouldn't keep people from being "mainstreamed." But paranoid schizophrenia or whatever it was going on in this kid's head shouldn't come under that umbrella.

The government needs to re-think a few things here before some other "question mark boy" goes berserk.
April 18th, 2007, 3:53 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:It seems that insane people can't be kept away from campuses due to the Americans With Disabilities Act.
A violent or criminally insane person can and should be committed and restrained. Although flags had been raised about this killer, he had not been diagnosed and/or committed as dangerously insane. We can't imprison people because of what they might do, there has to be a real and imminent danger.
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
April 20th, 2007, 12:44 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:A violent or criminally insane person can and should be committed and restrained. Although flags had been raised about this killer, he had not been diagnosed and/or committed as dangerously insane. We can't imprison people because of what they might do, there has to be a real and imminent danger.

I heard some discussion of this topic this morning on NPR. It seems that "real danger" from even the most disturbed people is impossible to determine with any level of certainty. You basically have to snag them just as they are cocking the gun.

I think that 2 things are needed here. First, we need to become more willing to treat people who are disturbed. Second we have to move away from the stigma that comes with mental illness. If this kid had been treated for his problems in high school (and from what I've read, there was a lot of indication that he was pretty unbalanced even back in middle school), it's a lot more likely that he could have successfully made it through his years of college.
April 20th, 2007, 1:26 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Neat take on this story from Stephen King. He certainly makes a lot of sense. I read Cho's so-called "plays" that made it on-line, and my first thought was "he's not much of a writer." Coming from a loser like me, that's saying a LOT, I think.

Certain;y something to consider for those who will spend the coming years looking for "red flags."
April 20th, 2007, 2:09 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
King's comment about
On the whole, I don't think you can pick these guys out based on their work, unless you look for violence unenlivened by any real talent.
is self serving.

Writing may help some to sublimate their desires. Much like pornography helps some people but inflames others. It's irrelevant how well it is done.

Given the current environment of fear I'd be against the preemptive detaining of 'suspect' people. We have one Guantanamo already. I'd hate to see another full of goths, neo-pagans and misfits, because someone thought they looked dangerous.

Despite the publicity, this is a rare occurrence and there is no underlying theme connecting the perpetrators, other than the desire for publicity - the 'you'll be sorry when I'm gone' card. It's just too easy to obtain guns and ammunition and walk into public areas - provided you have no wish to go on living.
April 20th, 2007, 3:10 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
It seems that a Va Tech professor had some harsh things to say about atheists in the wake of the attack last Monday. One atheist professor there tries to respond to the attack.

I suppose it felt good for him to write this, but for some believers, the idea that atheists might be as human as they are will never be accepted. I would cry about this, but my tears ran out long ago. :(
April 21st, 2007, 12:12 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
D'Souza wrote:Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy.
Neither do spiritualists, but they don't let it stop them.

I have had to talk with a mother of climbing friend who fell to his death. I wasn't able to say that she shouldn't worry because "he's now climbing perfect mountains with Jesus in heaven", but I was able to tell her about the passion he had for climbing, the awe and grandeur of the mountains that he loved and how much of a downright 'good guy' he was.

That an atheist chooses not to offer unsupportable claims, or to promulgate their sect, or blame the survivors for permitting homosexuals to exist, or to explain that they were punished for Adam's sin, is not a bad thing.
D'Souza wrote:Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.
The self-righteous arrogance of D'Souza is breath-taking. What 'meaning' can he offer?

All I could say to the mothers, assuming I knew their children, is much the same as above. That they had raised fine young men and women and that they can be proud of them. The act that killed them was senseless and meaningless but it doesn't make their children's lives meaningless.

If I didn't know their children then I would have the decency to shut up and offer what support I could.
April 21st, 2007, 3:14 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
I suppose it felt good for him to write this, but for some believers, the idea that atheists might be as human as they are will never be accepted.


When all is said and done, does it really matter what beLIEvers think or accept?

We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.


A most excellent response to the unfounded hatred and bigotry that assaults us on nearly a daily basis.
Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you "choose" to respond to it.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote: If you believe things that are contradicted by the evidence, then you are on a path built on falsehoods.
April 21st, 2007, 6:28 pm
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
Dinesh D'Souza is quite possibly the stupidest person in history to earn a living by publishing his vapid opinions. And that's really saying something, when you consider his competition among the right-wing punditry (and, to be fair, a few alleged liberals too). In a way, you have to admire his accomplishment.

The quote about atheist belief, on the other hand, is one of the most sensible things I've read in some time. I will definitely clip and save that one.
April 21st, 2007, 6:40 pm
debris
 
I think its pretty safe to say that according to atheists Cho was NOT evil. Since atheists don't believe in evil then how can Cho be evil?
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
April 21st, 2007, 8:25 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
That depends on one's definition of evil.

12 results for: evil

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
e·vil /ˈivəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ee-vuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
–noun 6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
12. a disease, as king's evil.


You're just as wrong about this as you were about sheol.
April 21st, 2007, 9:10 pm
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
Are you brave enough to pick a defintion from your list?
April 21st, 2007, 9:47 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
I think it's fairly evident from the list that none of the definitions listed mention god or religion in any way. Evil like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Your assertion that atheists don't beLIEve in evil is unfounded and wrong. Cho was most definitely psychopathic and most definitely evil. If murdering thirty two innocent people in cold blood isn't evil, then what is?
April 22nd, 2007, 7:48 am
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
Oh I agree that it was an evil deed. I just don't see how an atheist can judge another act as being evil when morality is relative. Maybe morality and ethics to the atheist is defined only by each person?
April 22nd, 2007, 8:41 am
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
BecauseHeLives wrote:Oh I agree that it was an evil deed. I just don't see how an atheist can judge another act as being evil when morality is relative. Maybe morality and ethics to the atheist is defined only by each person?


Atheist can judge acts as well as any other person. Our criteria need not be based on an interpretation of a translation of a book that claims to be inspired by the invisible pink deity. We don't need God to tell us murder is wrong and that mass murder is evil. While that may be subjective, it's also universally agreed upon.

I hold that murder is considerably more evil than coveting my neighbour's wife or not worshipping YHWH, although the Bible holds them to be equivalent. I think that real crimes that affect the lives and happiness of others are more evil than thought crimes.

You might disagree and feel that there can be no worse sin than blasphemy, WBC thinks that homosexuality trumps everthing. Morality is subjective with or without the bible...
April 22nd, 2007, 9:25 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
BecauseHeLives wrote:Oh I agree that it was an evil deed. I just don't see how an atheist can judge another act as being evil when morality is relative. Maybe morality and ethics to the atheist is defined only by each person?


Unfortunately, you only see what you want to see.
April 22nd, 2007, 9:37 am
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
A Person wrote:That an atheist chooses not to offer unsupportable claims, or to promulgate their sect, or blame the survivors for permitting homosexuals to exist, or to explain that they were punished for Adam's sin, is not a bad thing.

All I could say to the mothers, assuming I knew their children, is much the same as above. That they had raised fine young men and women and that they can be proud of them. The act that killed them was senseless and meaningless but it doesn't make their children's lives meaningless.

If I didn't know their children then I would have the decency to shut up and offer what support I could.
I have had to deal with many families who have lost a loved one to sensless death. Car accidents, random shootings, cancer, whatever. Many do not find it one bit comforting to be told that they should be "glad" their child is gone because he/she is now in the arms of God. I once heard a mother answer a church lady who said something of the sort: "I don't want him in the arms of God. I want him in my arms!"

The words, "I'm so sorry. How can I help?" are never wrong.

And if you are a friend of the family, you can help by cooking food (they aren't going to be up to cooking), by going over and cleaning their house to ready it for visitors, and to see what else might need to be done for them while they are trying to deal with the shock and arrangements.
April 22nd, 2007, 10:57 am
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
BecauseHeLives wrote:I think its pretty safe to say that according to atheists Cho was NOT evil. Since atheists don't believe in evil then how can Cho be evil?
It is also pretty safe to say that among educated Christians who understand that mental illness is a real phenomenon, Cho wasn't evil. He was an extremely sick, dangerous person. His rantings on that tape are so obviously deranged and crazy; how would anybody think he was even slightly sane?

The rantings fit best with the diagnosis, "paranoid schizophrenic" and there may have been some aspects of autism in the mix. Sometimes schizophrenia is a treatable disease, sometimes not. But this kind of disorder exists in the world, and until such a time as there is a cure, we had better stop closing our eyes to it and dumping severely mentally ill people with dangerous ideation like Cho back on the streets.

Now, please remember that most people with mental illness are NOT dangerous, and harm nobody but themselves. But in the 1970s, this country made a decision to close most of the public and residential mental institutions in the U.S. and to try to treat severe mental illness like an acute medical illness that can be safely treated with a few days in the hospital and some medication, and then outpatient treatment. Of course, then they didn't fund the outpatient treatment side of the new configuration.

What Cho did has nothing to do with poor parenting, with lack of discipline, or with demons and the devil. It has to do with a serious chemical imbalance in the brain.

Way too many people think that a person who is frankly insane is unable to take any purposive action. That is a stupid and dangerous mistake to make, as Cho just showed us. The form that this kind of disease takes is that the person (who has a severe chemical imbalance in his/her brain) gets thoughts that are completely false.

Cho obviously thought that he was being oppressed by the rest of the world. In fact, many, many people tried hard to help him, and it is clear that his roomates and other students at the school tried to reach out to him. He was just way too disordered to be able to accept or use that help. I have no idea if Cho was treatable. It sounds like he was only in a mental hospital for a few days at most, and that is not enough to do a thorough assessment and diagnosis much less provide the type of treatment over a sufficient period of time to determine what level of functioning he would have with treatment.

Anyway, the typical course of events is the untreated paranoid schizophrenic gets a completely false, crazy assumption in his/her brain, and then bases his/her behavior on the false beliefs of persecution. Since they believe they are being attacked, they think they have to "defend" themselves. And it gets even crazier from there.

A wise commentator on one of our local Denver channels said that unless the American people are willing to acknowledge that there are some people who are way too sick to be let out onto the streets, we will continue to have these horrific events from time to time.

Fortunately, it is a relatively small number of people who are so mentally ill that medicine cannot provide a degree of improvement that will allow them to function safely in the community (under medication and supervision when necessary). But the fact is that a few severely mentally ill people do not respond to treatment or will not take their medications. And they are dangerous. Very, very dangerous. And they do need to be confined--permanently--for the safety of society.

The cost of refusing to acknowledge this reality is more awful, horrific, grievious events such as that at VA Tech.
April 22nd, 2007, 11:24 am
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
I think that part of the problem is that 'evil' and 'sin' are seen by some as things not descriptions, i.e. nouns not adjectives. I even went along with that by calling his act 'evil' while carefully avoiding calling Cho evil.

The bible consistently refers to sin and evil as things that were let or released into the world.

As such I can perhaps see where BHL is coming from. I do not believe that evil is anything more than an adjective whereas I think he feels it is more than that.

We tend to reserve the word 'evil' for acts (or by extension the perpetrators) that are particularly unpleasant because they were premeditated and completely unnecessary. The people that flew planes into the towers did not have to do it, they planned and chose to do it. Cho did not have to pull the trigger. It wasn't a muffed robbery or an act of passion or the escalated results of one poor decision.

Whether Cho was an evil person or not is irrelevant, he was undoubtedly insane but I can't separate Cho from his sick mind.
April 22nd, 2007, 2:21 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
D'Souza wondered why Richard Dawkins had not been invited to address the mourners at Virginia Tech. He headlines Dawkins' Message to Mourners--Get Over It! Of course Dawkins said nothing of the sort. D'Souza claims that Dawkins could have nothing to say
D'Souza wrote:except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it. This is why the ceremonies were suffused with religious rhetoric. Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy.


I recalled that Richard Dawkins had in fact made a public comment about a the premature death of a close friend (and one of my personal heros), Douglas Adams.

You can read the full obituary here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story ... 95,00.html but hHere is a short extract:
Richard Dawkins wrote:Science has lost a friend, literature has lost a luminary, the mountain gorilla and the black rhino have lost a gallant defender (he once climbed Kilimanjaro in a rhino suit to raise money to fight the cretinous trade in rhino horn), Apple Computer has lost its most eloquent apologist. And I have lost an irreplaceable intellectual companion and one of the kindest and funniest men I ever met. The day Douglas died, I officially received a happy piece of news, which would have delighted him. I wasn't allowed to tell anyone during the weeks I have secretly known about it, and now that I am allowed to it is too late.

The sun is shining, life must go on, seize the day and all those cliches.

We shall plant a tree this very day: a Douglas Fir, tall, upright, evergreen. It is the wrong time of year, but we'll give it our best shot.

Off to the arboretum.
D'Souza can only tell me that as a thoughtful atheist, Douglas Adams is roasting in a fiery torment.
April 22nd, 2007, 3:02 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Atheists have nothing to say? Well the atheist professor sure had an awful lot to say.

I believe this young man was both sick and vicious, that his actions were both heinous and the result of a phenomenon that we must try to understand precisely so that we can prevent it in future. I have no sympathy for him. Given what he has done, I am not particularly sorry he has spared the world his continued existence; there was no possibility of redemption for him. You think we atheists have difficulty with the concept of evil. Quite the contrary. We can accept a description of this man as evil. We just don’t think that is an explanation. That is why we are exasperated at your mindless demonology.

I feel humbled by the sense of composure of a family who lost someone on Monday. I will not insult that dignity by pretending there is sense to be made of this senselessness, or that there is some greater consolation to be found in the loss of a husband and son.

I know my students are now more than students.

You can find us next week in the bloodied classrooms of a violated campus, trying to piece our thoughts and lives and studies back together.

With or without a belief in a god, with or without your asinine bigotry, we will make progress, we will breathe life back into our university, I will succeed in explaining this or that point, slowly, eventually, in a ham-handed way, at risk of tears half-way through, my students will come to feel comfortable again in a classroom with no windows or escape route, and hell yes we will prevail.

You see Mr D’Souza, I am an atheist professor at Virginia Tech and a man of great faith. Not faith in your god. Faith in my people.


I only wish I were half as eloquent as he is. Atheists have a lot to say. The problem is no one wants to listen.
April 22nd, 2007, 3:30 pm
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro
Blaming other people's religious beliefs or lack thereof is just stupid.

And how sad that people foolishly attribute blame for this instead of seeking the cause and possible prevention for future such events. (Blame isn't really pertinent here--it won't solve the problem of dangerously mentally ill people getting guns and shooting other people). There is a purpose in use of these ineffective approachs, however.

If we define this as simply evil--or define Cho as evil, then we are attributing the tragedy to demonic or satanic influences. We can't do anything about the devil or demons.

If we define this as "bad parenting", then we are attributing this tragedy to two people who themselves are quite devastated. And we have found another reason we cannot effectively do anything about. It is physically impossible to monitor all parents.

If we define this as Cho not being this or that type of Christian, then we are saying that religious diversity is really the cause of this. We can't do anything about religious diversity in the world--at least not without a religious war leading to a bloodbath that will make VT pale in comparison.

The purpose of all these silly diversions is to avoid dealing with the real problem: our inadequate and ineffective mental health system. To deal with the problem so as to reduce the probability of another seriously mentally ill person moving into the criminally insane arena and committing more atrocities, then we have to face the real problem--and deal with it.

The real problem is that our society doesn't want to pay for having an adequate mental health system, including restrictive, and sometimes long-term hospitalization for people with dangerous ideation.

So, there will be more of these kinds of incidents. My conclusion is that Americans are willing to have the occasional bloodbath as the price of not funding a mental health system.
April 22nd, 2007, 4:56 pm
Questioner
 
Location: Colorado
Questioner wrote:So, there will be more of these kinds of incidents. My conclusion is that Americans are willing to have the occasional bloodbath as the price of not funding a mental health system.
I don't think that's entirely fair either. Even a generously funded system would not entirely prevent the 'occasional blood-bath'. It's doubtful that it wold have prevented this one.

To my knowledge there has been no suggestion that Cho ever sought help and was denied or unable to get it. Several people saw warning signs but that's a far cry from having Cho committed and detained for compulsory treatment which is what would have been needed.
April 22nd, 2007, 5:37 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
D'Souza wrote: Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy.

D'Souza wrote: Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.


D'Souza wrote: except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it. This is why the ceremonies were suffused with religious rhetoric. Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy.


I can't help but wonder why the hell anyone would go off on a sermon against atheists at a time like this anyway?? Thirty two innocent people murdered and all this guy can do is rant against atheists??
April 22nd, 2007, 8:49 pm
User avatar
RebelSnake
 
Location: Greensboro

Return to Life