*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

GasBandit

Staff member
Alright, I think I know what you're talking about from when I was a teenager, but for me it was always turned inward, about pointing that aggression at myself. No idea why.
I guess an inward vs an outward focus.. the old "I'm Ok/You're OK" dichotomy. Some are "I'm OK/You're not OK" and some are "I'm not OK/You're OK." It's the "I'm not OK/You're Not OK" folks you really have to watch out for.

And the guy in question in this case was barely out of being a teenager himself... and sounded a little stunted at that.
 
I guess an inward vs an outward focus.. the old "I'm Ok/You're OK" dichotomy. Some are "I'm OK/You're not OK" and some are "I'm not OK/You're OK." It's the "I'm not OK/You're Not OK" folks you really have to watch out for.

And the guy in question in this case was barely out of being a teenager himself... and sounded a little stunted at that.
See, I've heard of that nward vs outward idea, but when I heard of it, the way it was presented was as a female only trait, and I didn't even recall it until now to realize how bullshit that is. Anyone can have any of those four dichotomies you listed.

Well, that makes me feel better. I was really getting nervous; both for my personal well-being and for the fiction writing I do.

And yeah, I could see "I'm not OK/You're not OK" leading to a particularly poisonous worldview.
 
Not a pop culture one, at any rate. All I am saying is that it is easy to "give in" to the baser human instincts. Kill your rivals. Take what you want. Fuck whomever you please. Make no excuses, just live an amoral, carefree existence. The cruder parts of your brain will reward you for this, cheer you on, even. This strategy might work for an organism whose life is spent in solitude, away from others of its kind. But in a societal structure, this behavior is seen as undesirable, and so individuals with these tendencies will be shunned, cast out, incarcerated, or even killed to minimize the disruption of that society.

--Patrick
I can't remember if it was this forum, or somewhere else I used to frequent, but one of the posters had as their signature something close to this: "Sometimes, every man is tempted to raise the black flag and start slitting throats." It's the same thing as what you're saying. I also respect Zero Esc's perspective, where this instinct could easily be turned inward. I've experienced both ends of this at various times in my life, so I do understand both at an emotional (not just logical) level. You both have my sympathies.



On the broader issues, I've never understood the impetus to make more things illegal. Murder is already illegal. People aren't obeying that. What's the point of more laws to prevent murder? They already don't give a damn about what's supposed to be the harshest one on the books. People already not doing that still won't be murdering later. Those who would have, still will won't they? I know that's very simplistic, but... well it IS that simple in my mind. If you make fewer methods of murder illegal (owning whatever thing is illegal to own now), I'm still not going to murder anybody! It's just window dressing for restricting more of the lives of those who wouldn't have done it anyways. I couldn't easily explore my fascination with Chemistry these days for much the same reasons.
 
On the broader issues, I've never understood the impetus to make more things illegal. Murder is already illegal. People aren't obeying that. What's the point of more laws to prevent murder? They already don't give a damn about what's supposed to be the harshest one on the books. People already not doing that still won't be murdering later. Those who would have, still will won't they? I know that's very simplistic, but... well it IS that simple in my mind. If you make fewer methods of murder illegal (owning whatever thing is illegal to own now), I'm still not going to murder anybody! It's just window dressing for restricting more of the lives of those who wouldn't have done it anyways. I couldn't easily explore my fascination with Chemistry these days for much the same reasons.
There are different levels of desire to do something. Making it more difficult will eliminate the cases of that thing done in the spur of the moment, and also the ones where the 'doer' is not willing or doesn't know how to overcome whichever difficulties you've put in place.

Also, restricting (for instance) gun ownership of someone who's suspected to be mentally ill has very clear gains and very unclear inconveniences on everyone else.
 
On the broader issues, I've never understood the impetus to make more things illegal. Murder is already illegal. People aren't obeying that. What's the point of more laws to prevent murder?
I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?
 
I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?
It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?
Yes.

Also, restricting (for instance) gun ownership of someone who's suspected to be mentally ill has very clear gains and very unclear inconveniences on everyone else.
Actually, there's already laws in place that say somone who is "mentally defective" is placed in a database and not allowed to buy a gun.

Who decides who is mentally ill, is what I worry about. Brandon Raub, for example, was basically committed against his will by police for being a 9/11 truther on facebook. He was released a week later once it came before a judge, after national outcry. Until legislation was produced in the senate to stop the practice in 2011, the VA had over 100,000 veterans placed in the "mentally defective" database because they had assistance managing their finances.

It's a sticky issue. And as it gets stickier, who is to say who might be declared mentally defective for political reasons?[DOUBLEPOST=1401370121,1401369931][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.
You're not alone, but neither is Espy. There are more people every day who think that government should not only tell you what you can and can't do, but also make laws to try to make it not only illegal but impossible for you to do certain things. I think the main difference comes from what you see as the role of the government - is it there as a solution of first resort, or last? Is it a nanny, or a policeman?
 

Necronic

Staff member
I will never understand how colleges have gotten away with this nonsense for so long.

Also, for all the pseudo-alpha nonsense, I mean....I sort of get it. I enjoy being an alpha in certain situations, although I don't call it that. I call it leader, or man at the party or whatever. But...the whole redpill way of looking at the world, the whole idea that alpha is something you seek, is very wrongheaded. Forget the alpha thing, it's fun when it happens but its a meaningless result of the real sign of character, a self-sufficient ego. Going for the result without creating the foundation is like putting paint on a pig, and that's what these redpill morons are doing.

As much as I dislike her cult and her economic policy, I do think that The Fountainhead is one of the most important books ever written, and I think that every man should read it. It's the closest thing out there to a manual about how to be a man.....although....the sex part is...problematic, so skip the kissy parts. And it's not really about being a man, it's just about being a person. It applies to men and women, but it describes what is the best of us.

X
 
It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.
It could be a case of removing temptation rather than "oh they didn't obey that law but surely they'll obey this law". For instance if someone made you (hypothetical "you" not you you) so angry that you pulled out a gun and shot and then immediately realised what you did and were horrified, it's already too late and you've killed someone.

On the other hand if gun control laws meant you weren't carrying a gun then you may punch them, or leave to get a gun and when that initial flash of rage passes you have worst case hit someone, best case walked away. Neither scenario ending with a death.

And yes I'm aware that laws like this would do absolutely nothing about stopping the kind of premeditated mass shootings that normally trigger debate about gun control in the US.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Not only that, I object to the notion that it is the government's place to go about childproofing the world for us. Yes, seat belts and motorcycle helmets save lives. No, I don't think that you should get a ticket for not wearing one. The end game of this line of thought is government even dictating what you can eat/drink - "it isn't good for you hence it is illegal." Looking at you, New York, with your absolutely asinine ban on large soft drinks.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
They already do that. It's how you avoid getting e-coli all the time.

And I thank them for that service.
There's a difference between requiring a food preparation service to meet cleanliness standards and telling you what you can and can't do to with your own body "for your own good."
 

Necronic

Staff member
You know, there is an example of what you are talking about that I remember somewhere and it has something to do with a weird maggot infested cheese from Italy....or Sicily I think. And it's illegal to buy here because it's so potentially dangerous. In that case I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's sort of a victimless crime.

Ed: There are other foods that are banned for ecological or ethical reasons, this one is purely for safety.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You know, there is an example of what you are talking about that I remember somewhere and it has something to do with a weird maggot infested cheese from Italy....or Sicily I think. And it's illegal to buy here because it's so potentially dangerous. In that case I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's sort of a victimless crime.

Ed: There are other foods that are banned for ecological or ethical reasons, this one is purely for safety.
I'll concede you another grey area - transplantation of potentially harmful species. Although, despite best efforts, we've still got killer bees and fire ants.
 
You know, there is an example of what you are talking about that I remember somewhere and it has something to do with a weird maggot infested cheese from Italy....or Sicily I think. And it's illegal to buy here because it's so potentially dangerous. In that case I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's sort of a victimless crime.

Ed: There are other foods that are banned for ecological or ethical reasons, this one is purely for safety.
It's pretty easy to find it, just Google for "maggot cheese." Then there's those puffer fish, or cassava root, or anything containing massive amounts of caffeine.

--Patrick
 
Used to be able to order the real stuff here too, but recently customs agents have cracked down on it. Most of the sites I used to order it from don't ship to Canada anymore.

A few years ago back when it was legal, my younger brother bought a couple of bottles for my other brother and myself on a trip through Europe. His flight got redirected south into the US because of a snowstorm in Toronto. They confiscated them from him there.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
There's a difference between requiring a food preparation service to meet cleanliness standards and telling you what you can and can't do to with your own body "for your own good."
And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?
The way I see it, the government has a role in making sure your seatbelt isn't made out of piano wire, but they shouldn't be enforcing wearing it. "Society's good" is can be a slippery slope, again, depending on who's defining what's good for society. Some people think banning gay marriage and abortion are good for society.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I'll concede you another grey area - transplantation of potentially harmful species. Although, despite best efforts, we've still got killer bees and fire ants.
It wasn't actually a harmful species, it was just potentially deadly to the person eating it.
 
And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?
There are risk compensation problems, however. Increased use of seatbelts has shown people drive at higher speeds or follow more closely than when not wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts decrease the rate of fatal injuries in car crashes, but increase the overall rate of injuries, possibly meaning that seatbelts mean the hospitals are more taxed.[DOUBLEPOST=1401465850,1401465639][/DOUBLEPOST]Not that I'm saying don't wear your seatbelt. Wear your seatbelt.
 

Necronic

Staff member
So apparently the cops actually visited his house BEFORE the shooting. They were asked to check in on him due to the disturbing videos he posted. The police checked in on him and did not watch the videos. Not sure how to read this really. Does this mean that increased scrutiny won't really work because it's already happening and not working? Or is this just a matter of police incompetence? Grr.

http://www.ibtimes.com/california-p...ideos-days-his-shooting-spree-did-not-1592327
X
 
So apparently the cops actually visited his house BEFORE the shooting. They were asked to check in on him due to the disturbing videos he posted. The police checked in on him and did not watch the videos. Not sure how to read this really. Does this mean that increased scrutiny won't really work because it's already happening and not working? Or is this just a matter of police incompetence? Grr.

http://www.ibtimes.com/california-p...ideos-days-his-shooting-spree-did-not-1592327
X
if he was poor and black and there was a bong in the background of the videos, a SWAT team would have blown off the door and killed his dog
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The truth of the matter is there is nothing anyone, not even government, can do or say that will eradicate tragedy from the world. Bad things happen all the time to good people who don't deserve it. It has always been thus, it will always be thus. Guns are already (unconsitutionally, in my opinion) strictly regulated. Mental sickness already makes it illegal to have a firearm. Police are, apparently, already checking up on possible trouble individuals, to the degree that shorthandedness and/or corruption will allow. We have a stronger military than the next 25 nations combined, there's still war - even war involving us where it should be so one sided as to be beyond belief. We've spent trillions, and continue to spend ever more, on eliminating poverty, and there is just as much poverty as there has ever been. If you'll forgive the source of the quote, life is pain, and anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
 

Necronic

Staff member
I work in industrial chemistry, which can be a dangerous workplace, but at my business we take safety very seriously. What you just is said is what I call "The BP Excuse". Things are inherently dangerous so really what can you expect other than these accidents? Except, when you look at my company and you look at their company, the accident rates are dramatically different. There is something you can do, BP is just a lazy incompetent company and the people who excuse their behavior as "cost of doing business" are dangerous morons. And I feel the same is true here.

Now, what the actual answer is? I don't know, it's complicated and needs deep thoughtful consideration. But saying that you can't eradicate dangers so don't try? If we operated like that at my company I might be dead right now, I would very likely be missing half of my face (I narrowly avoided a horrific injury because of our strict safety policy.)
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The main thrust of my post though, was aimed at those who believe that it IS possible to eliminate suffering through legislation. You have to look pragmatically at cost and result to gauge effectiveness. For example, comparing gun crime/murder rates in the sections of the country with draconian gun control laws vs those with relaxed gun control, you see a patter opposite that which one would expect - Chicago has the tightest gun control and yet the highest gun crime. The same goes for california, new york, etc. Throwing more money/more legislation at a problem doesn't always make it better. Indeed, in the case of the war on poverty, it has had exactly no measurable effect.

So is a crimeless society worth living under the Justice Lords? Trading one tragedy for another?
 
The main thrust of my post though, was aimed at those who believe that it IS possible to eliminate suffering through legislation. You have to look pragmatically at cost and result to gauge effectiveness. For example, comparing gun crime/murder rates in the sections of the country with draconian gun control laws vs those with relaxed gun control, you see a patter opposite that which one would expect - Chicago has the tightest gun control and yet the highest gun crime. The same goes for california, new york, etc. Throwing more money/more legislation at a problem doesn't always make it better. Indeed, in the case of the war on poverty, it has had exactly no measurable effect.

So is a crimeless society worth living under the Justice Lords? Trading one tragedy for another?
But is that just correlation or causation? I'm not saying there's no relation, but some places people tend to be more friendly.
 
The truth of the matter is there is nothing anyone, not even government, can do or say that will eradicate tragedy from the world. Bad things happen all the time to good people who don't deserve it. It has always been thus, it will always be thus. Guns are already (unconsitutionally, in my opinion) strictly regulated. Mental sickness already makes it illegal to have a firearm. Police are, apparently, already checking up on possible trouble individuals, to the degree that shorthandedness and/or corruption will allow. We have a stronger military than the next 25 nations combined, there's still war - even war involving us where it should be so one sided as to be beyond belief. We've spent trillions, and continue to spend ever more, on eliminating poverty, and there is just as much poverty as there has ever been. If you'll forgive the source of the quote, life is pain, and anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
World poverty is at all-time low, actually.

But, I relate to what you're saying, in which case, I'd ask, what do you think should be done? Those lucky enough not to have been subject to extreme tragedy, whether violent or social, should go on, while those who've suffered disproportionately should fatalistically accept their lot as the bottom? Do you really think individual choice is the only factor, and not environment, in one's success or failure?
 
Top