Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

Skeptic Ginger said:
At what point would you say that promoting the message, the government is so dangerous Second Amendment remedies are needed, crosses the line? At what point does Glenn Beck's and Fox's propaganda war cross the line from a campaign promise or a campaign accusation against an opponent to dangerous propaganda?
Click to expand...
.
The line was crossed when that Second Amendment statement was made.
The number of loosely wrapped conservatives I know take those kind of statements to heart.
The dramatic increase in gun sales immediately after shows that.
I was disposing a couple thousand rounds of ammunition at a local gun store just after a similar gun incident, as I had no further need for that ammunition, when one of the customers expressed surprise, that when "everyone" was stocking up, I was getting rid of it.
Beck lost my interest when he was on CNN. Almost made sense then, but soon departed into la-la land, and of course, with the other CNN failures, to Fox.
Some of my friends quote him to me, but it all comes out as gibberish, when filtered through their biases as they interpret his.
Not comprehending the goal of political office seekers is a problem.
The other guy is doing it for his personal improvement, usually financial, while our guy is a straight shooting... (oops! :) ) public spirited self-sacrificing example of the best of humanity. :covereyes
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
In addition, Pard admitted not knowing much about US politics
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said I don't know the full extent of what's going on in your country, because I don't live in it 24/7. I have my own nation to worry about.

and his posts revealed he knows little about schizophrenia.
Click to expand...
Strange, we basically agree on what it is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6770611#post6770611

The only difference of opinion we seem to have is that you think we can know what and why a schizophrenic thinks the way he does, while I say we can't ever know that for sure, because the associations they make in their minds is sometimes so arbitrary and personal, and by definition incoherent, we could never map it all out and make sense of it. We can barely do that for normal brained people.

So for you to claim to know the mind of Loughner and why he acted the way he did, is a pretty extraordinary claim you have yet to prove.

The only proof you have tried to give us is your own personal distaste of what some Republicans say in the media. You have yet to show the correlation between that and Loughner's thought process that led him to murder.

If you know little about the mind of a schizophrenic, and you know little about the intense fear mongering campaign going on in the US, how can you then be so certain you understand this incident?
Click to expand...
I'm asking you to provide the evidence that there is correlation.

I'm still waiting.
 
Last edited:
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
You don't think there is a difference between a bullseye and a crosshair? Here's a hint; you throw darts at one and aim a gun with the other. I'll leave determining which is which entirely up to you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, of course. Because no one has ever fired a gun at a bullseye. I find pedantry from the stupid deeply irritating.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So now you are an expert on the American politics that a few posts back you said you were not familiar with? Which is it, Pard, you know American politics or you don't?
Click to expand...

a) I never claimed to be an expert in American politics

and

b) I never claimed to know nothing about American politics.

You made two strawmen about me for the price of one.
 
A paranoid schizophrenic in Russia is going to have delusions about the KGB, a paranoid schizophrenic in England is going to have delusions about the Royal family. So I find it utterly unsurprising that this paranoid schizophrenic's delusions focused on the US Federal Reserve and the US government, and I find Skeptigirl's argument utterly unconvincing that this was specifically motivated by what some Republicans say, or what Libertarian Ron Paul said.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
.
The line was crossed when that Second Amendment statement was made.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I believe both sides of this argument are partially correct but it's difficult to assign scores. There is no doubt that hate speech can inflame people (even sane people) who are predisposed to violence to act out as a quixotic gesture. There is also no doubt that the Tucson shooter was bat-**** crazy and it's improbable that we will ever know where he picked up the ideas upon which he built his fantasy world. It may have been Sharron Angle or Elmer Fudd.

The challenge is to try to discern where the boundary is between "throw-away lines" and words that can inspire the unhinged to harm others. That probably can't be done because everyone is the not he same, even the insane. I"ve got relatives with full-blown schizophrenia and I don't believe any words would make them hurt anyone. I don't believe that vector is in them. They talk to me "in code" (frighteningly close to the shooter's "grammar").

Anyway, to cut to the chase, Sharron Angle's line about second amendment remedies did cross the line. My statement is based solely on personal opinion, though.
 
Pardalis said:
That's not what I said. I said I don't know the full extent of what's going on in your country, because I don't live in it 24/7. I have my own nation to worry about.

Strange, we basically agree on what it is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6770611#post6770611

The only difference of opinion we seem to have is that you think we can know what and why a schizophrenic thinks the way he does, while I say we can't ever know that for sure, because the associations they make in their minds is sometimes so arbitrary and personal, and by definition incoherent, we could never map it all out and make sense of it. We can barely do that for normal brained people.

So for you to claim to know the mind of Loughner and why he acted the way he did, is a pretty extraordinary claim you have yet to prove.

The only proof you have tried to give us is your own personal distaste of what some Republicans say in the media. You have yet to show the correlation between that and Loughner's thought process that led him to murder.

I'm asking you to provide the evidence that there is correlation.

I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...
You are just repeating yourself. I've answered all your questions.
 
Pardalis said:
A paranoid schizophrenic in Russia is going to have delusions about the KGB, a paranoid schizophrenic in England is going to have delusions about the Royal family. So I find it utterly unsurprising that this paranoid schizophrenic's delusions focused on the US Federal Reserve and the US government, and I find Skeptigirl's argument utterly unconvincing that this was specifically motivated by what some Republicans say, or what Libertarian Ron Paul said.
Click to expand...
The piece of the picture you left out here is the link I posted indicating things which reinforced a paranoid schizophrenic's delusions increased the likelihood they would act on those delusions.
 
Pard, you have no room to talk about not answering. You just ignore the answers and repeat your false claim your post was not answered.
 
Slimething said:
Agreed. I believe both sides of this argument are partially correct but it's difficult to assign scores. There is no doubt that hate speech can inflame people (even sane people) who are predisposed to violence to act out as a quixotic gesture. There is also no doubt that the Tucson shooter was bat-**** crazy and it's improbable that we will ever know where he picked up the ideas upon which he built his fantasy world. It may have been Sharron Angle or Elmer Fudd.

The challenge is to try to discern where the boundary is between "throw-away lines" and words that can inspire the unhinged to harm others. That probably can't be done because everyone is the not he same, even the insane. I"ve got relatives with full-blown schizophrenia and I don't believe any words would make them hurt anyone. I don't believe that vector is in them. They talk to me "in code" (frighteningly close to the shooter's "grammar").

Anyway, to cut to the chase, Sharron Angle's line about second amendment remedies did cross the line. My statement is based solely on personal opinion, though.
Click to expand...
.
The President of the Arizona Senate, Russell Pearce, is apparently a strident hard-liner on illegal immigration to the point of obsession, from an article in the LA Times this morning.
Closed-minded aggressive talk is not driving any peace wagon around, nor likely to lead to a comfortable solution.
 
No one is entirely responsible for the actions of a madman. But we have to distinguish between influence and responsibility. We don't know, and never can know, what Jared Loughner would have done if things had been different. Crazy people have done crazy and loathsome things in the name of just about every idea there is, from the worst to the best. Yet we do know what ideas Loughner picked up on, and we do know whom he targeted. He's left a trail of writings and videos and slaughter.

So who knows what would have happened if the airwaves were not saturated with sensationalist lies, extremist delusions, and the rhetoric of hatred, fear and violent insurrection? Maybe Loughner would have made up bad ideas of his own instead of borrowing them. Maybe he would have jumped off a bridge, or maybe he would have blown up a kindergarten, or maybe, just maybe, his insane delusions would have stood out a bit better, a little sooner, in an environment where crazy lies and outrageous and virulent rants were not the common currency. We'll never quite know.

We do know that people who should know better have infected our political discourse with violent and inflammatory rhetoric. If they did not believe that such rhetoric has definite consequences, they would not use it. You cannot play this both ways at once. If you say something you must either take responsibility for saying it or brand yourself an idiot whose utterances are without meaning. Influence and responsibility are quite different, but they overlap.
 
Last edited:
It's not relevant, BAC. Read Bruto's post above yours. Add to that the following:

Loughner's thoughts were disorganized. No one is saying (those who know what they are talking about anyway) that Loughner was a fanatical right winger.

That does not rule out the right wing fear mongering egging him on.
 
No matter what Loughner does eventually say (if anything), right-wing extremism contributed to this.


No really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom