Political climate?
High profile?
Influences of the alleged shooter?
Opportunists reactions?
President’s response?
Yes, no, rarely, peanut butter. Is there a particular point you want to make or an issue that you’ve curious about? They’re both cases of someone going crazy and shooting a bunch of people, but offhand I don’t see that much in common.
I assume another possible commonality is whether both shooters were influenced by ideological rhetoric, or only one.
If only one, why the difference, and how do we know it? If both, how much responsibility does the rest of the group to which the rhetoricians belong bear for the actions of the nutcase?
It’s like rape porn. Maybe it’s legal, but should it be condemned, if we have any reason to believe it affects those already predisposed to rape? And what level of proof do we need before we assume it has such an effect?
Regards,
Shodan
I’d expect better from a Mod.
I’m curious about alot of things but wanted to hear others’ opinions without offering my own first. Is that against the rules?
Wrong forum. If you want opinions, start an IMHO thread. If you want a debate, declare what it is you want to debate.
I wasn’t moderating, so that’s irrelevant.
There’s no rule that you have to state your opinions upfront, but defining your topic is strongly encouraged and it’s helpful. And no, you really didn’t do that. You didn’t even use a full sentence. Would you like to take a whack at it now?
That would be another point of comparison. I haven’t followed Nidal Hassan’s court case, but I’d say the answer is possibly yes for him and that for Jared Loughner, it’s undetermined.
I’d say they were both schizophrenics. The religiosity of the Ft. Hood shooter was a symptom not a cause.
And how do you determine that the Fort Hood shooter was influenced?
This is a serious question, by the way. I think we need to agree on a consistent standard we can use to arrive at the conclusion that rhetoric influenced a crazy person, and which rhetoric it was. Otherwise we are going to bog down in fallacies of attribution and selective perception, as in other threads.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t see any way around those things. However, unless credible psychiatric evidence shows that Hassan was motivated by something other than religion (or religious figures), I’m going to assume he wasn’t.
As far as Loughner goes, too early to tell, but I have yet to see any credible evidence of outside influence.
Also a tough question. I thought there was more of a direct line between his contact with imam Al-Awlaki and some of his more radical behavior, but I reviewed his Wikipedia entry and it’s not that clear. They were in contact long before he did anything crazy. And yes, figuring out the mental state and influences of someone who is crazy and does not interpret things the same way most other people do is very hard. Even if the timeline was clearer I don’t know if we could say Hasan was going crazy and was steered toward terrorism, or if he was already headed in that direction and chose his influences and websites for that reason.
And your basis for this diagnosis is…what, precisely?
Schizophrenia is a medical brain condition which requires extensive examination, medication, and face-to-face therapy to merely diagnose, let alone effectively treat. It’s a mysterious disease which is commonly misdiagnosed, even in personal settings with doctors who are NOT seeking TV time regarding a “gone postal” patient they’ve never met.
Call it an educated guess. Whatever the motivation, it wasn’t religion. Religion doesn’t make people shoot people or else all religious people would be spree killers. Religious mania is a symptom of some other disorder.
Have you seen any of Loughner’s YouTube entries? It goes without saying that nobody here is in a position to diagnose him, but what he posted there is not inconsistent with what I have read from, and about, people who were untreated and schizophrenic or having bipolar and going through a manic episode. I’m not sure about the religious mania comment regarding Hasan. In any case both of these guys will be evaluated by people more qualified than we are.
I’ve worked with a lot of schizophrenics for my job, and I’d bet my house that Loughner is schizo.
Well, at least you’re not the one responsible for his treatment. Even licensed, skilled psychiatrists with full access to the patient’s history can make a total bonehead error.
You are correct, religion is rarely an impetus for spree killing. Religious fervor may be the basis for most acts of war, genocide, terrorism, ritual child abuse & molestation, and generally making people act like lambs to the slaughter – but spree killing? Naah.
Nice play, since Jared Lee’s “public” diagnosis is unlikely to ever change. :rolleyes:
I don’t believe that religion is responsible for any of those things either, except maybe for turning people into sheep.
If it’s already publicly known that he has a diagnosis, I didn’t know it (though it’s about as obvious as it ever gets), but then why did you pooh pooh me saying he was schizo?
Are you actually saying that Islamic and/or Christian terrorism is never religiously motivated? Seriously, Dio – get a grip on yourself.
I didn’t say that, all I said is that your opinion is meaningless (thank goodness.) It’s the so-called “expert” TV doctors who I take umbrage with, not a humble layman like yourself.
If it was religiously motivated, then all Christians and Muslims would be terrorists. The vast, vast majority of both religions are not. Clearly there are other variables at work. I would argue, for instance, that most so-called “Islamic terrorism” is political in nature, and stems from political/economic/social pressures.
I’ll second that. Even wars that are nominally religious like the Crusades are usually grabs for land or resources. Religion is just the marketing tool the leaders use to get poor suckers to sign up.
I would say that any fundamentalist Christian or Muslim is indirectly guilty of aiding terrorism, merely for supporting the dangerous aspects of their respective messianic, pre-apocalyptic faiths. Naturally, the First Amendment prevents any such philosophy from becoming an actual crime, but think of this – how many Buddhist and/or Wiccan terrorists have you ever known? Not very many, I’d presume.
As for politics – that’s practically a religion itself, if you think about it. (cough Tea Party cough)
Excellent choice of words. To paraphrase what a great man once said: “In the end, it’s all about the economy.” 