• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the Newtown, Connecticut shooter "evil" or a victim?

AtlantaAdonis

AtlantaAdonis

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
2,383
Reaction score
717
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I find it interesting that in this post-Darwin age there are still those that characterize behavior they don't understand as "evil". As is by some act of "free will" they chose to commit acts that we find abhorrent.

Since it's basically a scientific fact that we have no free will and that he are basically slaves to electrical and chemical signaling within our brains how do you justify having such a backwards, superstitious view of this event? It is really no more his fault he killed children than it is your cell phone's fault it rings at a bad time when you forget to put it on silent. We are basically just machines with no capacity to willfully internalize any arbitrary, superstitious Christian concepts of "good". Maybe we shouldn't criticize folks for being born with whacked out brain chemistry and get a health care system that enables universal coverage of mental health services, but that is beyond the point.
 
I'd like to see this scientific fact.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I find it interesting that in this post-Darwin age there are still those that characterize behavior they don't understand as "evil". As is by some act of "free will" they chose to commit acts that we find abhorrent.

Since it's basically a scientific fact that we have no free will and that he are basically slaves to electrical and chemical signaling within our brains how do you justify having such a backwards, superstitious view of this event? It is really no more his fault he killed children than it is your cell phone's fault it rings at a bad time when you forget to put it on silent. We are basically just machines with no capacity to willfully internalize any arbitrary, superstitious Christian concepts of "good". Maybe we shouldn't criticize folks for being born with whacked out brain chemistry and get a health care system that enables universal coverage of mental health services, but that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...

Um, this "poor" kid lived in a $1.6 million dollar mansion, his "poor" mother lived on a meager $278K/year alimony stipend. It was not that his family lacked "access" to mental health care, more likely that he wished to avoid being institutionalized and saw that fate as being worse than death, which he ultimately chose. Was the shooter crazy, and lacking of "free will"? I doubt that very much, as this moronic murder spree required some detailed planning, thus he destroyed his hard drive, and his own mother, prior to undertaking it. What his real motivation was, we may never know, but to assert that either "gun control" or "access to mental health care" is the answer to this particular case is a real stretch, IMHO. Some folks see a huge, nanny state "solution" to every problem, and will bend "the facts" (known or unknown) to fit that slant.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I find it interesting that in this post-Darwin age there are still those that characterize behavior they don't understand as "evil". As is by some act of "free will" they chose to commit acts that we find abhorrent.

Since it's basically a scientific fact that we have no free will and that he are basically slaves to electrical and chemical signaling within our brains how do you justify having such a backwards, superstitious view of this event? It is really no more his fault he killed children than it is your cell phone's fault it rings at a bad time when you forget to put it on silent. We are basically just machines with no capacity to willfully internalize any arbitrary, superstitious Christian concepts of "good". Maybe we shouldn't criticize folks for being born with whacked out brain chemistry and get a health care system that enables universal coverage of mental health services, but that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...
Part of Human nature seems to be to assign incomprehensible good or bad things to a higher power.
Many of the threads this week have assigned this amoral act to, evil deity,
access to evil weapon, bad parenting,lack of mental health funding, lack of gun regulations, ect.
It may help to think of the Christian concepts of "good", not as a set of religious tenets,
but as a control group.
It is the framework on which our idea of morality rest.
Any good experiment has a system being tested, and one which is left alone.
In this way, we can accurately measure what the test did compared to no changes.
Our laws and society are the test, but the control group still goes back
to the Christian concepts of "good".
 
That depends. If the person was DD or had some other issue and the mother was some type of prepper or gun loon then I would say the mom. From what I heard she had lots of issues herself.

If the person was NT (neurologically typical) and did what he did then him.
 
wolfman24 said:
That depends. If the person was DD or had some other issue and the mother was some type of prepper or gun loon then I would say the mom. From what I heard she had lots of issues herself.

If the person was NT (neurologically typical) and did what he did then him.
Click to expand...

What were the mother's issues that you've heard about?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I find it interesting that in this post-Darwin age there are still those that characterize behavior they don't understand as "evil". As is by some act of "free will" they chose to commit acts that we find abhorrent.

Since it's basically a scientific fact that we have no free will and that he are basically slaves to electrical and chemical signaling within our brains how do you justify having such a backwards, superstitious view of this event? It is really no more his fault he killed children than it is your cell phone's fault it rings at a bad time when you forget to put it on silent. We are basically just machines with no capacity to willfully internalize any arbitrary, superstitious Christian concepts of "good". Maybe we shouldn't criticize folks for being born with whacked out brain chemistry and get a health care system that enables universal coverage of mental health services, but that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...

He is most definitely NOT a victim.

If one understands right and wrong, there is absolutely no way he can be classified a victim of anything except his own choices. Since this shooter killed himself rather than face the consequences of his actions, there is no reason to believe that he didn't understand what he did was wrong.
 
His attempts to destroy his hard drive also suggest this.
 
I don't think he's either, based on the evidence available. I think he was a man with no impulse control who was likely suffering through some sort of psychotic break either in relation to or in addition to an existing mental illness/disorder.
 
He's neither evil, nor a victim. He's a dead piece of **** that murdered a bunch of people for no legitimate reason.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Maybe we should [...] get a health care system that enables universal coverage of mental health services, but that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...

It isn't. If the health care mega-corps operated based on prevention rather than dealing with the symptoms of sickness, whatever the ailing condition is, physical or mental, atrocities such as the recent massacre would likely have been avoided.

Regarding the rest of your comments, you've mixed up so many terms and subjective context-based meanings with each other that it's impossible to give a concise answer to whether or not the shooter was a "victim".

First you have to define the terms you're using. Then you have to be consistent and not use conflicting terms like "evil" and "slaves to chemistry".

Im destructive and harmful cases like these, society chooses to put away the offender, whatever their intention or motive was. Whether the shooter is a mindless drone controlled by chemistry, or an instrument of an evil supernatural being, we, as a society, have evolved to a point to evaluate the behavior independently of anyone's claim or allegation of whether or not the motive of the offender was divinely inspired or not.
 
If it's a "scientific fact" that we have no free will, what can we do about it? It's not like I can choose to do anything.

Besides, why should I care? As you stated, we're pretty much just toasters. Who gives a crap if one toaster ends up causing collateral damage to some others?
 
Republic Now! said:
If it's a "scientific fact" that we have no free will, ...
Click to expand...

It's not.

First of all, the term "free will" is so vague that you'll have to leave the logical, reasonable, scientific way of thought behind when trying to define it.

Second, the mechanical nature of the human beings, popular with the 16th and 17th century philosophers, has been proven inadequate and simply wrong, over and over again.

Third, we are finally mature enough as a civilization to evaluate destructive behavior independently of the theorized motives or purposes of the destructive act. Only a few hundred years ago, mass death and destruction was not seen as destructive if there was a claim that the intent and the purpose of the heinous acts was divine or justified in some way.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I find it interesting that in this post-Darwin age there are still those that characterize behavior they don't understand as "evil". As is by some act of "free will" they chose to commit acts that we find abhorrent.

Since it's basically a scientific fact that we have no free will and that he are basically slaves to electrical and chemical signaling within our brains how do you justify having such a backwards, superstitious view of this event? It is really no more his fault he killed children than it is your cell phone's fault it rings at a bad time when you forget to put it on silent. We are basically just machines with no capacity to willfully internalize any arbitrary, superstitious Christian concepts of "good". Maybe we shouldn't criticize folks for being born with whacked out brain chemistry and get a health care system that enables universal coverage of mental health services, but that is beyond the point.
Click to expand...

Then we should execute everyone of them, and everyone we suspect will do it one day. It won't be our fault we do it--we are just wired that way.
 
Ikari said:
I'd like to see this scientific fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too.

No freewill. That implies our will is controlled by outside forces, yet he's says slaves to electrochemical forces in our brains.

If I choose Subway over McD's does that mean that there was zero chance of getting a big mac that day because my brain already decided what it was hungry for. Or maybe I just remembered all the construction around the golden arches and wanted to avoid the hassle. Of course, on the was to Subway, I see that the Big Wok is having a lunch special... I choose beef bowl. (or did I)

If I choose not to decide, have I still made a choice?
 
Paralogic said:
It's not.

First of all, the term "free will" is so vague that you'll have to leave the logical, reasonable, scientific way of thought behind when trying to define it.

Second, the mechanical nature of the human beings, popular with the 16th and 17th century philosophers, has been proven inadequate and simply wrong, over and over again.

Third, we are finally mature enough as a civilization to evaluate destructive behavior independently of the theorized motives or purposes of the destructive act. Only a few hundred years ago, mass death and destruction was not seen as destructive if there was a claim that the intent and the purpose of the heinous acts was divine or justified in some way.
Click to expand...

Free will is usually implied to be the conscious and willing ability to make decisions. This is metaphysical freedom.
 
Why does it have to be a contradiction?

He could be both evil and a victim.
 
Victimood is usually imposed, but may be a conscious choice. Evil, like Good, is always chosen.

Whether or not we're merely a mass of electrified chemicals without a soul is moot, since we recognise and acknowledge that certain outcomes may be effected voluntarily, where others are also possible. We've called this capacity choice. If it's not choice, then this too is moot, as, in that case, no judgements are warranted.
 
He's neither a victim, nor evil. He's (rather was) ****ed up.
 
Ikari said:
I'd like to see this scientific fact.
Click to expand...

:D By definition it can't exist. After all, if we have no will and all is simply electrical and chemical signalling in the brain, there can be no such thing as a "theory" :)




As for the evil v victim bit: there is nothing to say that the two are mutually exclusive. Hurt People, hurt people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom