[Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health

[lfalen]

Your arguments would have more veracity if you named people on both the right and the left, but you continue to harp on only Palin and the Tea Party. Talk about hate speech, no one has been on the receiving end of it more than Palin. She has been hanged in effigy. Do you condone that?  I suspect that if she were to be assassinated there would be very little condemnation of it from the left. Most likely the comments would be "good riddance" or "she had it coming".
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:12:59 -0800
To: Dan Carscallen areaman at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health

> Dan writes, in regard to the AZ shooting: "This can’t be blamed on rhetoric,
> nor on extremists from either side of the aisle.  The blame lays solely on a
> sick man who obviously needs help.  And, perhaps, the “blame” lays on the
> freedom we enjoy by being citizens of the United States of America."
> 
> First, no one on the V at least "blamed" the shooting on rhetoric, or Palin,
> or anyone, or anything. No one that I know who has talked about the
> connection between violent rhetoric (or gun control, etc.) and the AZ
> shooting has used "blame" talk. So let's get that straight.
> 
> Rather than talk about "blame" for or even "causes" of the shooting, let's
> talk about "explanations" for the shooting. Why did it happen? What can we
> do to prevent shootings like this from happening in the future? Your opinion
> seems to be that we can't do anything, that shootings like this just happen
> for NO reason whatsoever -- or they happen in societies that have the kinds
> of "freedoms" that our society has. That we should accept them because we
> can't do anything about it, unless we want to deprive people of their
> "freedoms."
> 
> Sorry but that seems a little too fatalistic and cynical for my tastes. I
> think we CAN do something about these kind of shootings. What can we do? I
> don't know. I'd prefer to talk about it, though, see if there are some
> possible solutions. I'm not claiming to have the solution, I'm just claiming
> that we can do something if we put our minds to it and come up with a plan.
> 
> The claim that violent rhetoric and gun laws and even Palin's poster have
> NOTHING to do with the shooting, that the explanation for the shooting is
> unrelated to the overinflated, violent rhetoric of the right and others, is
> an extreme claim. Issues of explanation are empirical issues. You have to
> back up such an extreme claim -- a claim like the claim that violent
> rhetoric has NOTHING to do with violence in America. Here are a few reasons
> why I think you can't back that claim up.
> 
> You'll have to explain why there is more violence in American than in almost
> any other country; why the violent rhetoric apparently works when it comes
> to getting people to vote (Tea Party candidates had some level of success in
> the last election; anti-gay propaganda was a huge part of Republican
> victories during the last Bush era) yet has NO other impact on human
> behavior; why a lot of the violence from "lunatics" is directed toward folks
> on the left (as well as gays, Muslims, etc.). Now if you have the
> explanation, please give it -- please explain why you're so certain that
> there is NO connection between violent rhetoric and actual violence. I'm
> pretty sure you have no formal training in psychology or sociology, so I'm
> unsure what your basis is. I don't think the explanation has anything to
> with our "freedoms." I don't think the vision of a society that is both free
> and nonviolent is an absurdity.
> 
> I think it is clear that there is SOME connection between violent rhetoric
> and actual violence. The real questions are how much of a connection is
> there (what is the nature of the connection) and what can we do about it? I
> refuse to think that "Nothing" is a good answer.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com> wrote:
> 
> > Vizzz peeps,
> >
> >
> >
> > We live in a free society.  One of the prices we pay for living here is
> > that there are some loonballs running around who could snap at any minute> Should they be?  Probably not, but who is to say when and how these folks
> > should be rounded up and treated?  Sure, I think all of us can talk about
> > the guy in our neighborhood that seems a little sketchy, but what are we
> > supposed to do?  Call the cops and have them haul him in because he doesn’t
> > fit society’s norm?  I think there are a lot of folks, right here on the
> > Vizzz even, that don’t necessarily follow the “norm”.   But we go along and
> > live our lives in our free society.
> >
> >
> >
> > The media talked to this Jared guy’s neighbors, and they said “yes, he
> > seemed like a nutjob”, but what were they to do?  They watched him, kept
> > their distance, stayed as vigilant as they could.  Unfortunately, he
> > “slipped through the cracks”.  Should he have been prevented from buying a
> > pistol?  Maybe, but in a free society, how?  He wasn’t a convicted felon, he
> > answered all the questions properly, and he paid his money.  It’s not a
> > speedy process, no matter who or where you are.  Even with a concealed
> > weapon permit, and a pre-checked background, it’s not quick by any means.
> >
> >
> >
> > This can’t be blamed on rhetoric, nor on extremists from either side of the
> > aisle.  The blame lays solely on a sick man who obviously needs help.  And,
> > perhaps, the “blame” lays on the freedom we enjoy by being citizens of the
> > United States of America.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your pal
> >
> >
> >
> > DC
> >
> > =======================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> 
>