Thread: Connecticut School Shooting

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Is it? You're making an assumption that are appetites are purely our own. Behavioral psychology and many other fields would argue that often what we want is told to us, not driven by us.

I think that's called marketing. And whether its effective or not in shaping consumer demand, the onus is still on each consumer to make responsible decisions. If someone lacks the little bit of mental fortitude or loses the self-control required to avoid these things, then you have an eating disorder. It still doesn't give you the right to make a moral judgment about cheeseburgers or go around closing McDonaldses.

It sounds like the murderer here may have suffered from Asbergers syndrome, and fame might not have been a motivating factor.

That said, it seems to me that our nation needs to further increase security at our schools. With so many people who are unemployed, maybe it makes sense to pay some of them to guard schools instead of just giving them unemployment benefits and welfare.

And I think that we need to find the money to hire more mental health professionals to help stop disasters before they happen. Again, I prefer paying people to do work that we really need, such as helping mentally ill (and potentially dangerous people) than giving the same people unemployment benefits and/or welfare.

Finally, I think that some reasonable level of gun control makes sense, but at this point there are so many assault rifles out there that I don't see gun control helping much except over the very long run.

Originally Posted by glunn

And I think that we need to find the money to hire more mental health professionals to help stop disasters before they happen. Again, I prefer paying people to do work that we really need, such as helping mentally ill (and potentially dangerous people) than giving the same people unemployment benefits and/or welfare.

The last piece of that paragraph is where it goes horribly wrong. If ANYONE is working with mentally ill for the paycheck, God help us all. You do it because you want to see someone grow beyond stigma, because you have a heart for those who suffer, because you want to promote equality of all humans, but never because of the money. The second it becomes about your paycheck is the second that no one really cares about helping those who are mentally ill and we return back to the 1960s as far as mental health treatment goes.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

I think that's called marketing. And whether its effective or not in shaping consumer demand, the onus is still on each consumer to make responsible decisions. If someone lacks the little bit of mental fortitude or loses the self-control required to avoid these things, then you have an eating disorder. It still doesn't give you the right to make a moral judgment about cheeseburgers or go around closing McDonaldses.

Good think you're not stepping too far out on a limb and comparing school shootings to cheeseburgers, you know you have a strong point when you walk down that analogy.

No one is denying consumer responsibility. But our law books are filled with orders for businesses to act responsibly and not harm the general public. Anywhere from usury to FDA regulations. It's not so simple as you seem to want to make it out to be. Also, the media is made of of individuals as well - I'm just demanding that they have the "self-control required to avoid these things." So I fail to see where you have anywhere to stand.

Are you holding out for a religious awakening in the marketplace where merchants stop selling products that might make their customers unhealthy if consumed in large quantities? Or would you have this sort of product censored or served with a disclaimer?

Does operating a business make you immune from ethics? That appears to be your point.

Whose ethics, yours or the merchants? Or do you expect all merchants to volunteer to a common ethic, and adhere to it equally in some religious fashion?

First - you are consistently falling into the is-ought fallacy. Second - answer my question and then I will answer yours. Fact is that we hold businesses accountable on any number of moral grounds in our legal system. You have no meaningful point you have articulated yet. This is pretty much the last time I'll bother with your web of fallacies and empty rhetoric. Asking businesses to act ethically at their own loss his hardly radical.

I'm only skeptical that anyone's ethics are being broken. That's why I asked for evidence of a relationship between how the media covers these subjects and the slayings that occur later. It is premature to be talking about censorship until we actually understand whatever relationship may exist there.

Myself... I won't get involved in an ethics discussion. I think it's unethical for paparazzi to chase Princess Di through the streets of Paris. Yet... There appears to be a market fo it because they wouldn't chase her through the streets of Paris if they didn't get paid to do it... So... My thoughts and feelings on it don't seem to matter much.

I'll just say that the media as it exists today is a creation of the 1st amendment and what the public wants it to be and leave it at that. If the media is reporting on something that society doesn't want. Metrics will let them know fairly quickly and they will stop. This can't be disputed and if that point is not germaine to this discussion. It doesn't need to be explored anymore.

The Media has many aspects to it that don't jive with my personal feelings or ethics. I think the media has responsibility and I think they fail and I think they fail because it is a business first and as a business it's morality or ethics is a direct reflection of our collective morality and ethics.

As things stand today and as things have stood throughout time. I'd say its completely impossible to report the Sandy Hook story without mentioning who did it and attempt to answer why he did it and therefore bringing about fame in the process.

We all know who Jack the Ripper is... Hitler... Mark David Chapman and Marcus Junius Brutus. Who-Dun-It is a question that goes back to the Garden of Eden. It's nothing new and I would say that none of these people have been glorified (your word). It takes a special kind of insane mind to want fame in this negative light and if you are dealing with an insane mind, can you really legislate or filter enough to control what influences the insane mind? This fame can also be fleeting and a terrible miscalculation. For every Jeffery Dahmer... There is a Gerald Stano... Anyone remember him without googling. How Bout Michael Swango? Jane Toppan? Carl Panzram? The list of killers of multiple human beings we don't remember is much much longer than the ones we do. If fame was his goal... It will be short lived and a big mistake.

This discussion has gone a totally different direction. I'm trying to imagine how you would report a story like this without bringing fleeting or lasting fame to the killer. It's never been done before is the only thing I can come up with.

Baseball refusing to televise the people who run on the field hasn't stopped them from doing so.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

The last piece of that paragraph is where it goes horribly wrong. If ANYONE is working with mentally ill for the paycheck, God help us all. You do it because you want to see someone grow beyond stigma, because you have a heart for those who suffer, because you want to promote equality of all humans, but never because of the money. The second it becomes about your paycheck is the second that no one really cares about helping those who are mentally ill and we return back to the 1960s as far as mental health treatment goes.

That was not my intent. I am a big fan of mental health professionals -- my oldest son is a social worker -- and what I intended to convey was my desire to get many of those professionals off unemployment and back to work helping people who need help. I understand your point and agree that few people get into such profession for the money.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

I'm only skeptical that anyone's ethics are being broken. That's why I asked for evidence of a relationship between how the media covers these subjects and the slayings that occur later. It is premature to be talking about censorship until we actually understand whatever relationship may exist there.

Who said anything about censorship? I would suggest it isn't ethical to direct most of the attention on the killers. I have never said the general public isn't fascinated with these things, but the media dictates their degree of coverage and ultimately makes the decision about just how much glorification these murderers get. Those decisions come into play before my thumb can ever flip the channel. Making excuses for their poor ethics is just that - excuses.

I understand what the world is, I disagree that it ought to be that way. It isn't a hard distinction. And my disagreement stems from the fact that A) some (not all) past killers have felt motivated by prior mass murders. Perhaps "inspired" is the best way to say it. B) Our wall to wall coverage of "why this person did it" never amounts to much of any substantive progress. So not only do we make these vile human beings famous, we don't even garner anything practical out of the process. I gladly sign-up to decry that.

Originally Posted by Riverbrian

Baseball refusing to televise the people who run on the field hasn't stopped them from doing so.

If the claim was that it would then you have a point, but that has never been claimed. The reason they don't is only partly to discourage repeat offenders. The larger reason is so that they don't give some jackass the 5 seconds of fame he's trying to earn by being an *******. In other words - to not dignify being a jerk.

Which is precisely the point. We do, intended or not, dignify the act. Columbine is the ultimate example - it spawns copycats, it has made those two murderers into cultural icons (negative icons, but icons nonetheless), and there was ZERO substantive, practical results out of the process that dignified them. I call that stupid and unethical.

Originally Posted by glunn

That was not my intent. I am a big fan of mental health professionals -- my oldest son is a social worker -- and what I intended to convey was my desire to get many of those professionals off unemployment and back to work helping people who need help. I understand your point and agree that few people get into such profession for the money.

I didn't assume that was your intent, but you weren't the first person who's said that, and frankly, I know more than I should that do the job for the money being in the field myself. It sickens me, to put it kindly.

Originally Posted by biggentleben

I didn't assume that was your intent, but you weren't the first person who's said that, and frankly, I know more than I should that do the job for the money being in the field myself. It sickens me, to put it kindly.

For what it's worth, I could not be more proud of my son for choosing such a difficult and underpaid career, or more appreciative for your efforts in this regard. You are making the world a better place and your efforts are appreciated by people like me.

Originally Posted by glunn

It sounds like the murderer here may have suffered from Asbergers syndrome, and fame might not have been a motivating factor.

Aspergers is NOT a mental illness and would NOT cause someone to do this. He may or may not have had it, but that is not a factor. Now anyone with autism will have yet another stigma to face.

Exactly - instead of video games or bullying I fear the national dialogue will be on autism. Given our track record on these conversations I am genuinely worried. Yet another reason to back off coverage on him.

Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan

Aspergers is NOT a mental illness and would NOT cause someone to do this.

You are wrong and right both. In many states, Aspergers is classified under mental illness, not developmental disability. For instance, in South Dakota, none of the autism spectrum alone qualifies someone as being developmentally disabled, but does qualify them for mental health services.

Aspergers and autism are not violent disorders to the community, however. Possibly within their own circle (family, very close friends), but not strangers.

Wow. OK. So the problem is the media or maybe video games or maybe mental health or maybe bullying but let's make sure we don't consider guns as a problem. Stunningly stupid.

Originally Posted by ChiTownTwinsFan

Aspergers is NOT a mental illness and would NOT cause someone to do this. He may or may not have had it, but that is not a factor. Now anyone with autism will have yet another stigma to face.

My point was NOT that Aspergers was a causative factor. My point was that, taking into account his Aspergers, the shooter may not have been motivated by a desire for fame.