Freedomain Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 An in-depth look at Elliot Rodger's Isla Vista, California mass shooting, manifesto and the lead up to these tragic events. A timeline of the mass shooting, predictability of such events,...
shirgall Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Stef, you ask why the police could not look up the gun registry to see if this boy had bought guns. Because of past and potential abuses, this information is not readily available to police, even in California. Without probable cause, these police cannot search his residence, his bank records, or his firearms purchase history. However, if his videos were enough to prompt a visit, I cannot see why they did not articulate probable cause to a judge to get a warrant to search these things. Sending 7 police to interview him but not getting a warrant? This sounds like a "show of force" to "scare someone straight" rather than an honest investigation into threats of violence.
_LiveFree_ Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Really great job on this Mike and Stef. Holy hell this got so scary in the last 20 minutes.
jpahmad Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 I watched the video, which was horrifying, and I really got hung up on something Stefan said. Not that I disagree with him, but I think what he said points to an enigma of sorts. Let me try to remember the quote. I think it Stefan said something like this: "As infants, we are owed something from our environment" (nurture, security, affection, etc..) It is also quite apparent from Roger's narrative that he felt entitled to just about everything from his environment, at every stage of his life. Here's my question: If I take the position that we are owed something as infants, and then as adolescents or adults, we are no longer owed anything, then don't I have to determine and explain the point at which this fundamental relationship with our environment changes? An in-depth look at Elliot Rodger's Isla Vista, California mass shooting, manifesto and the lead up to these tragic events. A timeline of the mass shooting, predictability of such events,...
shirgall Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 If I take the position that we are owed something as infants, and then as adolescents or adults, we are no longer owed anything, then don't I have to determine and explain the point at which this fundamental relationship with our environment changes? I think the it's implied that Elliot's maturation was impeded (if not curtailed) by the divorce and subsequent abandonment of parenting. I heard it mentioned elsewhere that there's very little about his (less than five years younger) sister in the 'manifesto'. Maybe there's something to explore there.
OtherOtie Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 If I take the position that we are owed something as infants, and then as adolescents or adults, we are no longer owed anything, then don't I have to determine and explain the point at which this fundamental relationship with our environment changes? It's impossible to pin down the exact age at which a child's development reaches a certain point, but that doesn't mean the difference between an infant and an adult isn't obvious to us. Also, (Stef can correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think he would argue that it's our relationship with our environment that changes, but our relationship with our parents. Our parents are the ones who owe us nurture, security, and affection, not our environment. The environment isn't a person and thus has no obligation towards us.
jpahmad Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 It's impossible to pin down the exact age at which a child's development reaches a certain point, but that doesn't mean the difference between an infant and an adult isn't obvious to us. Also, (Stef can correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think he would argue that it's our relationship with our environment that changes, but our relationship with our parents. Our parents are the ones who owe us nurture, security, and affection, not our environment. The environment isn't a person and thus has no obligation towards us. o.k., don't pin down the age. Obviously it would be different between individuals. But, please tell me, what occurs at this exact moment, this certain moment when we go from the state of being able to receive pity (a child who is not getting their needs met), to scorn and condemnation (a violent sociopath)? I suppose an example answer would be "the point at which one can understand the non-aggression principle."
MMX2010 Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 This youtube video was excellent, and it made me think of Stef's earlier review of the movie American Psycho. (FDR 1759). In it, Stef points out how the man who created the movie American Psycho explicitly told everyone what the movie means, and who inspired it. But no one hears this.
IvanNH Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Thanks for making a video about Elliot Rodgers, Stefan and Michael. After I found out what happened, I was hoping you would. You didn't disappoint!
OtherOtie Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 o.k., don't pin down the age. Obviously it would be different between individuals. But, please tell me, what occurs at this exact moment, this certain moment when we go from the state of being able to receive pity (a child who is not getting their needs met), to scorn and condemnation (a violent sociopath)? I suppose an example answer would be "the point at which one can understand the non-aggression principle." Well, I'm not sure it actually has to do with age. Rather, it has to do with parental obligation. Because the parents chose to bring a child into the world, they are responsible for the child itself, which includes the host of obligations that we mentioned. I don't think that age is the difference maker. After all, we might imagine that a set of parents who never teach their child the practical and psychological skills necessary to be self-sustaining would still be responsible for their child even as an adult. The point at which parents no longer owe their children anything is the point at which they become self-sustaining, because it is then that the parents have fulfilled the extent of their obligation. If they never fulfill their obligation, then they are still in debt to their child.
jpahmad Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Well, I'm not sure it actually has to do with age. Rather, it has to do with parental obligation. Because the parents chose to bring a child into the world, they are responsible for the child itself, which includes the host of obligations that we mentioned. I don't think that age is the difference maker. After all, we might imagine that a set of parents who never teach their child the practical and psychological skills necessary to be self-sustaining would still be responsible for their child even as an adult. The point at which parents no longer owe their children anything is the point at which they become self-sustaining, because it is then that the parents have fulfilled the extent of their obligation. If they never fulfill their obligation, then they are still in debt to their child. So what are the ethical implications of this? If there are any. Because Rogers parents never fulfilled their obligations
OtherOtie Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 So what are the ethical implications of this? If there are any. Because Rogers parents never fulfilled their obligations I think the implication is that his parents are partly responsible for what happened.
zg7666 Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 Just as a side note: analyzing hundreds of scientific papers, newspaper articles and court documents related to the mass and serial murder researchers from the University of Glasgow have recently come to the finding that individuals who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder and / or a head injury prone [extremely] violent behavior, but only if they are in childhood were exposed to continuous psychological stress and trauma. 239 serial and mass murderers in the study, 28 percent of them were, or are suspected to be the case, of autistic disorder, with seven per cent of the sub-sample at the same time had a head injury. 21 per cent of the total sample had less reliable evidence that they once suffered a head injury; of these, 13 percent at the same time suffer from some form of autism. Finally, more than half of the assassin with autistic disorder and / or head injury had a childhood marked by psychological trauma; Their crimes and the method of execution are severe and cruel compared to those committed by comparable individuals whose childhood passed without any major hitches. Overall, the researchers conclude that approximately ten percent of serial and mass murderers exhibit autistic symptoms; additional ten percent of the perpetrators of multiple murders have experienced an injury or multiple injuries to the head; two-thirds, of both, was marked by severe childhood psychological trauma. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178914000305
Psychophant Posted August 9, 2014 Posted August 9, 2014 What does it mean suffering from ASD? Unless you are one of the extreme examples you ain't suffering. Do gays suffer from being attracted to their own sex? I don't think so. Asperger Syndrom is a neurological variety and in the USA part of the umbrella term ASD. Besides, you can have autistic symptoms without being autistic in the same way that you can be narcisstic without being a person who is diagnosed with NPD.
Recommended Posts