Omega 3 snake oil Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYr0V04dsa8 How long til Stef does a podcast on this? I say Mondayaaaannnd I can't wait. I imagine it might be the only silver lining to come out of this horror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culain Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I heard that Mike is going to be burning the midnight oils going through the kids work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I liked that video a lot, Omega 3 Snake Oil. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 140 page manifestos don't make for quick work. I suspect we'll get Adam Curry's take on it Sunday morning... he loves to dismantle manifestos and legislation. (On the No Agenda show if people are curious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I'm struggling with something on my mind. I think I would be in support of a law which forces parents who raise a murderer to be heavily interrogated and have all the information released publicly. Any thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Making more laws is not the answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I'm struggling with something on my mind. I think I would be in support of a law which forces parents who raise a murderer to be heavily interrogated and have all the information released publicly. Any thoughts on this? I wouldn't support this if it were law, but I think a free society would enact such a policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Making more laws is not the answer... I get that, and It might an irrational thought on my part, but the reason that idea popped into my head is from the bit of research I've done on this, I haven't been able to find out much about what really went on during his childhood or how his parents treated him, beyond providing him with lots of material possessions, taking him out of high school because of bullying, and eventually calling the police on him when they found some of his videos online. Learning about what went on in his childhood is absolutely paramount to preventing this type of thing from happening in the future, but without some type of interrogation of his parents it's going to be much more challenging to acquire and present that information to people. Maybe a law isn't the right way to put it, but a rational and free society would likely prioritize an interrogation of the parents after an event like this, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Parents were divorced when he was 7... http://cryptome.org/2014/05/elliot-rodger.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 ...a rational and free society would likely prioritize an interrogation of the parents after an event like this, wouldn't it? They interviewed the parents in order to set the narrative to be about guns and misogyny... but that's not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Should be up tonight. Full presentation format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinJames Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I get that, and It might an irrational thought on my part, but the reason that idea popped into my head is from the bit of research I've done on this, I haven't been able to find out much about what really went on during his childhood or how his parents treated him, beyond providing him with lots of material possessions, taking him out of high school because of bullying, and eventually calling the police on him when they found some of his videos online. Learning about what went on in his childhood is absolutely paramount to preventing this type of thing from happening in the future, but without some type of interrogation of his parents it's going to be much more challenging to acquire and present that information to people. Maybe a law isn't the right way to put it, but a rational and free society would likely prioritize an interrogation of the parents after an event like this, wouldn't it? If I were a DRO entrepreneur in a free society, I would have a clause in some insurance contracts stating that, in the event of a suicide, homicide, or other act of violence committed by anyone covered under the contract, the contract would be suspended, and the DRO would reserve the right to ascertain information about the event to the degree that the DRO deemed appropriate. If those involved with the contract refused, or showed resistance, or were found to be at fault, the rates would be renegotiated, or coverage denied, based on this information. In our current society, I would be glad to see a law requiring such an interrogation; much like I am glad to see laws protecting children from abusers, or laws that limit the power of the government to tax. Would I vote for a law requiring this? Well, I don't vote, so no. Though no amount of laws will ultimately end these kinds of problems, laws intended to eradicate evil are encouraging to me-- a kind of social barometer for libertarian values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Should be up tonight. Full presentation format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKPgamer Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I get that, and It might an irrational thought on my part, but the reason that idea popped into my head is from the bit of research I've done on this, I haven't been able to find out much about what really went on during his childhood or how his parents treated him, beyond providing him with lots of material possessions, taking him out of high school because of bullying, and eventually calling the police on him when they found some of his videos online. Learning about what went on in his childhood is absolutely paramount to preventing this type of thing from happening in the future, but without some type of interrogation of his parents it's going to be much more challenging to acquire and present that information to people. Maybe a law isn't the right way to put it, but a rational and free society would likely prioritize an interrogation of the parents after an event like this, wouldn't it? My answer to this would be...DROs in a free society would be looking at prevention not cure. Since all the evidence points to abusive childhood as the genesis of these types of incidents I'd assume DROs would be offering incentives for people to take appropriate parenting classes on negotiation and the adverse effects of child abuse. While I know it's really hard to think outside our current system, the best way I can try and explain it is this: By the time there is a free society there will be so many prevention techniques to stop this behavior BEFORE it starts...teachers, neighbors, friends, etc...that will be empathetic enough to look out for a child in a bad situation that it'll never get to that point. In our current society though the law only looks at how to deal with a situation once it has already reached a boiling point...whereas, at least as far as I understand it, in a free society the incentive will be there to catch and stop this early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedomain Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathanm Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The turnaround time for these videos is amazing. You guys are doing great work. It wouldn't be the first time I saw a The Truth About… video before I had even heard the original news. What a horrible story. Perhaps the family members alarmed by videos about murder and suicide would have been better off by telling police that they suspected an 85-year old woman was living there and selling drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magenta Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 The turnaround time for these videos is amazing. You guys are doing great work. It wouldn't be the first time I saw a The Truth About… video before I had even heard the original news. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Charles Manson from Wiki - In 1971 he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the murders of seven people, actress Sharon Tate and four other people at Tate's home, and the next day, a married couple, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, all carried out by members of the group at his instruction. He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.If Manson's conviction is legit, would it make sense, for the purpose of consistency, for Rodger's parents to be charged with some form of conspiracy or being held accountable to some degree via the joint-responsibility rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Charles Manson from Wiki - In 1971 he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the murders of seven people, actress Sharon Tate and four other people at Tate's home, and the next day, a married couple, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, all carried out by members of the group at his instruction. He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.If Manson's conviction is legit, would it make sense, for the purpose of consistency, for Rodger's parents to be charged with some form of conspiracy or being held accountable to some degree via the joint-responsibility rule? As horrible as their parenting may be, they did not coldly plan the death of others and then take actions to carry out that plan. The best you could hope for is manslaughter, willful negligence or reckless behavior that a reasonable and prudent person would know could lead to the death of another, with death as the result (and that's a stretch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 As horrible as their parenting may be, they did not coldly plan the death of others and then take actions to carry out that plan. The best you could hope for is manslaughter, willful negligence or reckless behavior that a reasonable and prudent person would know could lead to the death of another, with death as the result (and that's a stretch). How do you know they didn't plan to be horrible parents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 How do you know they didn't plan to be horrible parents? I don't want to speak for Shirgall, but I think he meant that "being a horrible parent (planned or not)" is not in the same ethical category as "planning the deaths of random strangers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 How do you know they didn't plan to be horrible parents? It's easier to believe that they didn't plan to be good parents than them planning to be bad ones. Intent is important when prosecuting crimes but is oh-so-difficult to prove. Bottom line is that they hardly were a proximate cause or conscious actor in Elliot's plans, and there is some discussion that they tried to intervene. However, when they called the police and asked them to check on Elliot, the cops hadn't seen the videos. When they got the final note of Elliot's intent with mere minutes to spare they didn't call the cops but instead chose to drive to Santa Barbara to intervene. These are poor choices that border on criminal negligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I don't want to speak for Shirgall, but I think he meant that "being a horrible parent (planned or not)" is not in the same ethical category as "planning the deaths of random strangers". Back to my original question. If Manson was culpable, these parents are culpable, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Back to my original question. If Mason was culpable, these parents are culpable, yes? I don't think so. They may be jackasses, but their kind of jackassery very rarely leads to bringing up a psychopath that kills people. Their poor behavior could have just has easily lead to another movie-maker that produces another American Psycho. It is reasonable to assume that a child growing in those conditions will have some dysfunction. It is not reasonable to assume the child make a serious attempt at mass murder. Culpability has to have predictability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fractional slacker Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 shirgall or anyone, would you extend that same courtesy to the Manson scenario? Or am I in error by juxtaposing the two scenarios? In Manson's case you had full grown adults voluntarily associating with one another. At some point a few of them murder and then say Manson made me do it. But they made the choice to do it, yes? Manson was essentially found guilty of murder. In the case of E.R., he was not in a voluntary relationship with his parents for most of his life. E.R was not blatantly physically abused by the parents the way some children are, that we know of at least. According to Stef's video, the father was negligent and absent and the step mother was emotionally cruel. So the question is are they free from all responsibility for their actions and inactions as parents which played a huge part in E.R. becoming an unstable psycho? Would you say Charles Manson was a jackass, but his kind of jackassery very rarely leads to psychopathic behavior that kills people? His ecentric behaviour could have just as easily lead to more hippie dippie art, fun, and free love making. BTW, I don't think that is an unreasonable argument, but it's not a popular one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 shirgall or anyone, would you extend that same courtesy to the Manson scenario? Or am I in error by juxtaposing the two scenarios? In Manson's case you had full grown adults voluntarily associating with one another. At some point a few of them murder and then say Manson made me do it. But they made the choice to do it, yes? Manson was essentially found guilty of murder. In the case of E.R., he was not in a voluntary relationship with his parents for most of his life. E.R was not blatantly physically abused by the parents the way some children are, that we know of at least. According to Stef's video, the father was negligent and absent and the step mother was emotionally cruel. So the question is are they free from all responsibility for their actions and inactions as parents which played a huge part in E.R. becoming an unstable psycho? Would you say Charles Manson was a jackass, but his kind of jackassery very rarely leads to psychopathic behavior that kills people? His ecentric behaviour could have just as easily lead to more hippie dippie art, fun, and free love making. BTW, I don't think that is an unreasonable argument, but it's not a popular one. The Charles Manson case is quite a bit different. Let's just set the stage, shall we? See http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/manson/mansonsummation.html "The night of the afternoon that Mr. Manson said 'Now is the time for Helter Skelter,' were you still at the ranch that night?" "Yes." "Was this the evening of August the eighth, 1969?" "I believe so." "What took place that evening, Linda, at the ranch?" "I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Spahn's house, and he told me that-" "He told you what?" "He told me to get a change of clothing, a knife, and my driver's license." "Did Mr. Manson tell you to change the clothing you already had on or to bring an additional change of clothing?" "To bring an additional." "To bring an additional change of clothing?" "Yes." "Now, when you walked up to the car, you say Katie and Sadie that is Patricia and Susan-were inside the car. Where was Tex?" "He was standing over by the driver's side." "Was he talking to anyone?" "1 think he was talking to Charlie." "What is the next thing that happened?" "Tex got in the car, and we started-" "What happened at that point?" "We got about to the middle of the driveway, you know, and Charlie called us and told us to stop, and he came to the car to my side of the window, stuck his head in, and told us to leave a sign. He said, 'You girls know what I mean, something witchy,' and that was it." Much of the evidence, of course, I haven't got into yet. There is no question at all that Manson was sending Tex, Sadie, Katie, and Linda out on his mission of murder. Linda testified that they were all wearing dark clothing, Sadie a black T-shirt, Katie a dark T-shirt, Tex with a black turtleneck, sort of a velour velvet shirt. She said all three were wearing dark Levi's. Charles Manson was very much part of the plot, the call to action, and the coverup of those murders. This is quite different than just being a bad parent. Is it reasonable to assume those under Manson's thrall would go off and write poetry, make a movie, or just try their best to live a normal life with that kind of set up? Bad parenting is hardly proximate cause. It may contribute, sure, but it's hard to raise to the level of conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 One argument to destroy the conspiracy theory around this story?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEH85TAeWjo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 It's a hoax because there's a box labeled "glass" in one picture? You can order freakin fluorescent bulbs and they come in a box marked "glass". This "hoax" claim is pretty flimsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts