while i agree that the army is not and should not be used as a police force, if there’s a psychopath running around killing people, i’m going to have to say that i’m okay with soldiers moving to ensure my safety.
as for why this psychopath went on his rampage, it’s great to be able to blame douchebag bankers, but seriously, there is no excuse for his behavior. it’s on him.
But why is the most prominent coverage done by an unprofessional, “left-wing nutjob” site?
I don’t think the troops moved in right when the man went on a rampage. According to the account given, they came out in force after all the shooting was over.
In any case, yes, even if you change someone’s circumstances, they are still responsible for their actions. However, that’s not the whole of it. Different circumstances make it more difficult to make the right decision. It’s unethical, for instance, to get someone drunk to seal a deal. Being drunk doesn’t excuse a poor decision, but the person who knowingly got them drunk doesn’t have clean hands either.
We know that putting a large number of people under a ton of stress increases the statistical likelihood that one of them will do something utterly crazy like this. It’s not rocket science – desperate people do insane things.
so…. bartenders have the deaths of all drunk driving deaths on their hands? what about the distilleries that produced the alcohol? what about the farms that produced the grain/vegetables/etc that is converted into alcohol?
where does the causal chain end?
in the end, life is short, life is shit, life is out of our control. i don’t believe there is free will.
Maybe, maybe not. A bartender is required by law in many states to warn a drunk not to drive and attempt to get his friends to intervene or offer to call a cab. He might not succeed but he’s supposed to make an effort.
Understand that the distinction is drawn between gross negligence and normal use. If you want to say nobody is responsible for anything, why have laws at all? If, on the other hand, laws are enacted to statistically reduce things like people going on shooting rampages, then maybe we ought to think about the statistics involved in “douchebag bankers” doing what they want with no legal consequences.
I’m going to have to read this more carefully this evening; I really appreciate your link.
It occurred to me that I do not subscribe to you-which is absolutely ridiculous, because at the end of the day I’m pretty sure what you have to say matters more than the vast majority of the other stuff I read.
Comments (5)
that’s…. um. crazy. like, left-wing nutjob crazy.
while i agree that the army is not and should not be used as a police force, if there’s a psychopath running around killing people, i’m going to have to say that i’m okay with soldiers moving to ensure my safety.
as for why this psychopath went on his rampage, it’s great to be able to blame douchebag bankers, but seriously, there is no excuse for his behavior. it’s on him.
@synaesthetics -
But why is the most prominent coverage done by an unprofessional, “left-wing nutjob” site?
I don’t think the troops moved in right when the man went on a rampage. According to the account given, they came out in force after all the shooting was over.
In any case, yes, even if you change someone’s circumstances, they are still responsible for their actions. However, that’s not the whole of it. Different circumstances make it more difficult to make the right decision. It’s unethical, for instance, to get someone drunk to seal a deal. Being drunk doesn’t excuse a poor decision, but the person who knowingly got them drunk doesn’t have clean hands either.
We know that putting a large number of people under a ton of stress increases the statistical likelihood that one of them will do something utterly crazy like this. It’s not rocket science – desperate people do insane things.
so…. bartenders have the deaths of all drunk driving deaths on their hands? what about the distilleries that produced the alcohol? what about the farms that produced the grain/vegetables/etc that is converted into alcohol?
where does the causal chain end?
in the end, life is short, life is shit, life is out of our control. i don’t believe there is free will.
@synaesthetics -
Maybe, maybe not. A bartender is required by law in many states to warn a drunk not to drive and attempt to get his friends to intervene or offer to call a cab. He might not succeed but he’s supposed to make an effort.
Understand that the distinction is drawn between gross negligence and normal use. If you want to say nobody is responsible for anything, why have laws at all? If, on the other hand, laws are enacted to statistically reduce things like people going on shooting rampages, then maybe we ought to think about the statistics involved in “douchebag bankers” doing what they want with no legal consequences.
I’m going to have to read this more carefully this evening; I really appreciate your link.
It occurred to me that I do not subscribe to you-which is absolutely ridiculous, because at the end of the day I’m pretty sure what you have to say matters more than the vast majority of the other stuff I read.
So I fixed the problem.