• 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!

Police: Gunman kills two at N.J. supermarket

Furiounova said:
How can we even begin to address the causes without recognizing it is an epidemic?
Click to expand...

Because "epidemic" is a silly, sensationalist, wholly-inappropriate word to be using here, which bespeaks far more of seizing an opportunity to advance an agenda than it does any actual sober-minded approach to a problem.
 
Harshaw said:
Because "epidemic" is a silly, sensationalist, wholly-inappropriate word to be using here, which bespeaks far more of seizing an opportunity to advance an agenda than it does any actual sober-minded approach to a problem.
Click to expand...

Batman shooting

Empire state

Nj supermarket

Out of recent memory not including the ones I've not read or heard about.

If you don't like the word epidemic then let's call it a problem with a really high rate of frequency.
 
LaMidRighter said:
There's no reason to get emotional, you've lost on this one. The actual criminal definition of terrorism has been posted, and all you brought to the table was a created term.
Click to expand...

That's right. Because every single term, word, or phrase in every human language was never created by humans. They were all dropped from the Magical Webster Sky.
 
Objective-J said:
its possible but in my opinion I dont think its an epidemic or heres under reporting on it.

if it is an epidemic id actually like to see less reporting on it and just more education/prevention on how to curb (because prevention is impossible) things of this nature.

I dont want reporting on it unless its to catch somebody at large. IMO reporting on it is ONE of the reasons SOME of these people do these things
Click to expand...

It would be hard to report on it without it being seen as sensationalism in some respects and one reason I call it an epidemic because these shooters do not share a lot of common bonds like traditional violent crimes. Those usually have a specific and identifiable purpose. In these shootings the only purpose is death.
 
Furiounova said:
That's right. Because every single term, word, or phrase in every human language was never created by humans. They were all dropped from the Magical Webster Sky.
Click to expand...
You cannot change the nature of a crime by defining it incorrectly. Words mean things, the words in law mean things, and people not sufficiently experienced in the matters they speak have no authority to change definitions. Not a difficult concept.
 
Furiounova said:
Batman shooting

Empire state

Nj supermarket

Out of recent memory not including the ones I've not read or heard about.

If you don't like the word epidemic then let's call it a problem with a really high rate of frequency.
Click to expand...

"Epidemic" implies it occurs in these instances for common reasons which can be "addressed." This is simply not the case.

And an unusual number of occurrences over a given time wouldn't make it an "epidemic" in any case. "Coincidence" is the better term. And 3-4 in a country of 310 million isn't a "really high rate of frequency" by any means.

To Goshin's point, judging this kind of thing ("frequency") by national press coverage is to think only pretty white girls get kidnapped or disappear.
 
Furiounova said:
It would be hard to report on it without it being seen as sensationalism in some respects and one reason I call it an epidemic because these shooters do not share a lot of common bonds like traditional violent crimes. Those usually have a specific and identifiable purpose. In these shootings the only purpose is death.
Click to expand...

again you could be right I just dont see it as an epidemic because people just out to hurt/kill others isnt new to me.
 
Objective-J said:
again you could be right I just dont see it as an epidemic because people just out to hurt/kill others isnt new to me.
Click to expand...

That act isn't new but what I'm referencing is the indiscriminate killing be it strangers or co workers and in schools. Problems in life are nothing new and "going postal" is a common term to refer to these types of shootings but that is really glossing over them.
 
Harshaw said:
"Epidemic" implies it occurs in these instances for common reasons which can be "addressed." This is simply not the case.

And an unusual number of occurrences over a given time wouldn't make it an "epidemic" in any case. "Coincidence" is the better term. And 3-4 in a country of 310 million isn't a "really high rate of frequency" by any means.

To Goshin's point, judging this kind of thing ("frequency") by national press coverage is to think only pretty white girls get kidnapped or disappear.
Click to expand...

There is a common factor in the shootings.

I'm not judging it by the frequency of it being reported in the MSM. I'm saying the MSM is under reporting which is the opposite of what you were implying. Have you read any of my posts on it or are you jumping in mid stroke and missing the context by accident?

It is an epidemic in that people are becoming less and less shocked when it does happen. There is something seriously wrong when so many people of so many different backgrounds are resorting to the exact same method of exit.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You cannot change the nature of a crime by defining it incorrectly. Words mean things, the words in law mean things, and people not sufficiently experienced in the matters they speak have no authority to change definitions. Not a difficult concept.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change the nature of the crime. Tell ya what. Why don't you explain the nature of the crime with something other than going postal?
 
Furiounova said:
What are you talking about? I'm not trying to change the nature of the crime.
Click to expand...
Yes you are. "Social Terrorism" for whatever the **** that's supposed to mean would carry with it the weight of a terrorist attack, which would mean that the assailant was trying to force a change in policy by using methods designed to frightening a populace into compliance, this was not the case. The person who shot these innocents was pissed off for losing his job, it was murder and a revenge killing. Not terrorism.
Tell ya what. Why don't you explain the nature of the crime with something other than going postal?
Click to expand...
I haven't gone postal, and the crime has been explained. You wanted to use a created definition and lost.
 
Furiounova said:
There is a common factor in the shootings.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't, other than it was people who did them. There certainly is no common cause.

I'm not judging it by the frequency of it being reported in the MSM.
Click to expand...

You certainly were, earlier in the thread.

I'm saying the MSM is under reporting which is the opposite of what you were implying.
Click to expand...

Which was what Goshin said to you earlier.

You're arguing against your own point. You point to a few hyped recent events as evidence that there's an "epidemic," but now you say they might not be so unusually high after all, because of "underreporting."


Have you read any of my posts on it or are you jumping in mid stroke and missing the context by accident?
Click to expand...

I'm watching you change your argument.

It is an epidemic in that people are becoming less and less shocked when it does happen.
Click to expand...

"Shock" or lack thereof has nothing do with "epidemic." You're just making up definitions.

There is something seriously wrong when so many people of so many different backgrounds are resorting to the exact same method of exit.
Click to expand...

You say yourself, in effect, that it probably isn't overly unusual, yet you continue to act as though it is.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yes you are. "Social Terrorism" for whatever the **** that's supposed to mean would carry with it the weight of a terrorist attack, which would mean that the assailant was trying to force a change in policy by using methods designed to frightening a populace into compliance, this was not the case. The person who shot these innocents was pissed off for losing his job, it was murder and a revenge killing. Not terrorism. I haven't gone postal, and the crime has been explained. You wanted to use a created definition and lost.
Click to expand...

You're right I lost so I guess this means you will stop wasting your time.

To put it another way: you don't even know the basic facts of this shooting.

He didn't get fired.

He had only been working there for two weeks.

Next time, try learning the facts before trying to criticize others for trying to understand events like social terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
No, there isn't, other than it was people who did them. There certainly is no common cause.



You certainly were, earlier in the thread.



Which was what Goshin said to you earlier.

You're arguing against your own point. You point to a few hyped recent events as evidence that there's an "epidemic," but now you say they might not be so unusually high after all, because of "underreporting."




I'm watching you change your argument.



"Shock" or lack thereof has nothing do with "epidemic." You're just making up definitions.



You say yourself, in effect, that it probably isn't overly unusual, yet you continue to act as though it is.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like you dont understand my position at all.

I'm saying these acts of social terrorism happen more frequently than what the MSM has been reporting.

I'm saying these acts of social terrorism have common factors even though the backgrounds of the perps can widely vary.
 
Furiounova said:
You're right I lost so I guess this means you will stop wasting your time.
Click to expand...
See, this is the emotional response I am talking about. You are trying to be a smartass under the assumption that you have maintained standing here but realistically this is an overreaction to explanations of why you appear to be making **** up.

To put it another way: you don't even know the basic facts of this shooting.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes I do, I mixed it up with the Empire State shooting, "Jersey" got into a workplace argument. Either way it was a workplace violence situation. Happens all the time, only this incident was deadly.


He had only been working there for two weeks.
Click to expand...
Okay? Relevance to your position? I've seen people get fired in less than a week and quit their first 24 hours before.

Next time, try learning the facts before trying to criticize others for trying to understand events like social terrorism.
Click to expand...
How about you speak with facts, your "social terrorism" charge doesn't exist.
 
LaMidRighter said:
See, this is the emotional response I am talking about. You are trying to be a smartass under the assumption that you have maintained standing here but realistically this is an overreaction to explanations of why you appear to be making **** up.

Actually, yes I do, I mixed it up with the Empire State shooting, "Jersey" got into a workplace argument. Either way it was a workplace violence situation. Happens all the time, only this incident was deadly.


Okay? Relevance to your position? I've seen people get fired in less than a week and quit their first 24 hours before.

How about you speak with facts, your "social terrorism" charge doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You didn't get anything mixed up. You just don't know the facts so you tried to hide that fact.

You don't even know the cops and others said the people shot and killed were random targets.

You were flat out wrong about him being fired so you try to mask that with saying it was because he got in an argument.

If you are someone who gets to decide who has "standing" then oh boy....lol......nobody ever has standing.

Your inability to comprehend what social terrorism means does not mean it is non existent.
 
Disgruntled employees have been shooting up their workplaces since I was a kid. Thing is, there was no cable news, no internet, Walter Cronkite wasn't interested, so the only place we learned about it was from newspapers. There's a reason workplace shootings have been called "going postal" since the 70's or 80's.

This phenomenon isn't new, it isn't "terrorism", it's just plain old revenge from someone who felt wronged. Sad but simple.
 
DiAnna said:
Disgruntled employees have been shooting up their former workplaces since I was a kid. Thing is, there was no cable news, no internet, Walter Cronkite wasn't interested, so the only place we learned about it was from newspapers. There's a reason workplace shootings have been called "going postal" since the 70's or 80's.

This phenomenon isn't new, it isn't "terrorism", it's just plain old revenge from someone who felt wronged. Sad but simple.
Click to expand...

This guy had no history with his co workers since he had been there for only two weeks.

Going postal usually refers to long time tensions and that is not what social terrorism is referencing.

It is not as if suddenly the MSM is reporting it and that is the source of interest.

He does have a history of mental illness and tweeted about killing co workers three years ago but I believe in 2009 he was in the Marines at the time so he would have been referencing other Marines.
 
Quick! We better get his race, religion and political ideology! Forget the victims or the atrocity committed, our first priority needs to be profiling the shooter and blaming a group of people he may align with (of course, only if he doesn't belong to my race, religion or political ideology) and not the killer himself/herself.
 
Furiounova said:
You didn't get anything mixed up. You just don't know the facts so you tried to hide that fact.

You don't even know the cops and others said the people shot and killed were random targets.

You were flat out wrong about him being fired so you try to mask that with saying it was because he got in an argument.

If you are someone who gets to decide who has "standing" then oh boy....lol......nobody ever has standing.

Your inability to comprehend what social terrorism means does not mean it is non existent.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it. You are trying to act knowledgeable by creating or passing along empty created terms, I've seen people do this quite a bit, especially with law, crimes, and guns, the only thing it does is show the rest how truly uninformed the user is and that they don't mind compensating for it by torturing the language.
 
Furiounova said:
This guy had no history with his co workers since he had been there for only two weeks.

Going postal usually refers to long time tensions and that is not what social terrorism is referencing.

It is not as if suddenly the MSM is reporting it and that is the source of interest.

He does have a history of mental illness and tweeted about killing co workers three years ago but I believe in 2009 he was in the Marines at the time so he would have been referencing other Marines.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have considerably more information on this case than was provided in your linked source, which did not reveal how long he'd worked there, whether he'd been fired, whether he'd been in the Marines or whether he had previously made threats against his coworkers. If you do not link to sources that offer this information, then there's no way for others to use said information in discussion.

So... :shrug:
 
DiAnna said:
Disgruntled employees have been shooting up their workplaces since I was a kid. Thing is, there was no cable news, no internet, Walter Cronkite wasn't interested, so the only place we learned about it was from newspapers. There's a reason workplace shootings have been called "going postal" since the 70's or 80's.

This phenomenon isn't new, it isn't "terrorism", it's just plain old revenge from someone who felt wronged. Sad but simple.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the result of our living in the information age. Things are probably no worse with regard to violence of all kinds that they have been in the past, but we are living in a time when we know minute details of the lives of strangers.
 
DiAnna said:
Apparently you have considerably more information on this case than was provided in your linked source, which did not reveal how long he'd worked there, whether he'd been fired, whether he'd been in the Marines or whether he had previously made threats against his coworkers. If you do not link to sources that offer this information, then there's no way for others to use said information in discussion.

So... :shrug:
Click to expand...

The OP link is not the only available source and it is not my job to research every aspect but to only post a link to the event and given my opinion.
 
Furiounova said:
The OP link is not the only available source and it is not my job to research every aspect but to only post a link to the event and given my opinion.
Click to expand...

So you post a link with minimal information, then research hell out of the incident and the guy in question so you can use it to shut everyone else down. Got it! :lol:
 
lizzie said:
Exactly. It's the result of our living in the information age. Things are probably no worse with regard to violence of all kinds that they have been in the past, but we are living in a time when we know minute details of the lives of strangers.
Click to expand...

I think that is true in many respects because we often fail to realize we don't know very much so when we are given new information we tend to naturally think it is new to most everyone.

I don't see that applying here because social terrorism carries some new aspects and one of the most important ones is no way to navigate to the root cause. One reason I call it social terrorism is due to it being fallout from our society. The US has an unusually high rate of gun violence among 1st world nations and this type of shooting is even more rare when comparisons are made.

The shooters are not seeking a political agenda but they are inherently collectively pushing us to examine our society to seek the reasons for them seeking death for conflict resolution in situations usually resolved by a few meetings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom