skalogre
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,348
- Reaction score
- 157
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I support this message
Say that to Leibniz.
My visceral reaction is to call a spade a spade, and not to indulge in non-sensical rationalizations.If your instant visceral reaction is to call anyone who shoots for some vague reason or other, evil then fine
All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.
I am sure there is plenty of information here that will be useful, no?
All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.
Now you're just making $hit up. Quit while you're behind.
Produce an actual quote from Leibniz that is germain to this discussion, and I will be more impressed.
Speaking only for myself, I can face it, but I believe it is untrue. All the evidence goes the other way. What I object to is not so much your stated desire to shock our bourgeoise complacency, but the phony ethical distinction you conjured out of thin air seemingly to support an ill considered prior statement. You would have been better off just going back and editing that old post. No moral serious philosopher denies the importance of volition; the man who simply snaps and commits a crime is less culpable that man who thinks every step through and derives a lifetime of pleasure fom his misdeeds. But to say that mass murder is not evil if not savored and enjoyed is flatly false.
Um no, I'm not going to make that leap of moral equivalence with myself or anyone on this board. A college student is not ignorant of the moral evil of killing innocent human beings. It's about as black and white as it gets.
Presuming that indeed, this shooter was acting out of some deranged fidelity to his girlfriend, then the moral equivalance, its neccesary compulsion, was not morally evil, given the reasoning behind the rampage was not to shoot simply for the pleasure of shooting. Therein, I would not make the distinction that this was a morally evil act, only a physically evil one. I was not saying this was not an evil act. If you will read my previous statements, I first identify that I have a problem with calling people who commit certain acts Evil--with a Capital E as if evil was all there is to it. Then some people get defensive about it and so I have to explain; and thus this categorical assumption of a moral evil versus a physical evil is a tangetial flow. But I believe the question is: Do you easily make statements over the insanity or evil-ness of someone?