Terrorist's Mother Blames Son's Actions on Video Games

[MonkeyFace]

It's okay to read really violent and twisted works from Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare in middle school and high school...but video games are the culprit for all the sins in this world.

 

He could have been inspired by Tom Clancy books for all I know. 

[Trik'Stari]

It's okay to read really violent and twisted works from Edgar Allan Poe and Shakespeare in middle school and high school...but video games are the culprit for all the sins in this world.

 

He could have been inspired by Tom Clancy books for all I know. 

The only thing those ever inspired me to do was read/watch something more interesting lol

[Guest]

Can I just....

 

Nope, nevermind.

[Guest Kloaked]

You and I have agreed on things, then had short conversations about things in other threads: do you think I have a mental disorder based on our interactions?

I don't see how being a follower of a religion entails that one has a mental disorder. If I was high and mighty like most people of my religion, I'd claim those who aren't of my belief system are the ones with mental disorders, but I don't. That'd be very dumb of me to say or even think.

[Trik'Stari]

Is it me, or is it an insane and impossible feat to attempt to speculate about the motivations of a dead crazy person anyways? (I do think he was a terrorist or wanted to be, but I also think all terrorists are insane)

 

You and I have agreed on things, then had short conversations about things in other threads: do you think I have a mental disorder based on our interactions?

I don't see how being a follower of a religion entails that one has a mental disorder. If I was high and mighty like most people of my religion, I'd claim those who aren't of my belief system are the ones with mental disorders, but I don't. That'd be very dumb of me to say or even think.

 

Meh, I'd say you have a mild disorder, you believe in something that suspends all rules of reason and logic in favor of faith. One of the tenants of christianity and in fact most religions, is that it can't be "proved" it has to be believed in faith. At least that's how it's always been explained to me by christians when I ask them to prove that god exists.

 

Have you ever thought about the fact that the supposed existence of heaven and hell make the idea of "morality" moot? A moral, selfless act is one without motivation, the existence of a heaven and hell would serve only as a reward and threat, thus giving you motivation and nullifying your morality and or selflessness? If you have motivation to do something "selfless" then the truth is you don't want to do something selfless, you want others (god, people at church, people on the street, your family, etc.) to see you as having done something selfless. Morality should come from within, not from an external source.

[Kamina]

I fucked up as a parent and will deny that I fucked up raising my child so I will cop out and blame video games.

[SeriouslyMikey]

In other news, idiot mother blames son's actions on video games.

[HalGameGuru]

Before anyone brings back any argument over gender or male/female parenting, goto youtube, Stefan Molyneux has a whole slew of videos on child rearing and parenting and as far as psychology is concerned a father figure is incredibly important for children of both genders in multiple ways, one of the biggest being the development and actuation of MORALS AND EMPATHY. Just because a woman may be stereotypically seen as a gentler or more empathic care giver has no bearing on the realities of child psychology. If you want some distilled info he has a billion episodes so finding the pertinent ones sometimes take a bit of a slog but they are there and they do cite genuine psych studies and theory.

 

I see morality has popped back up, in relation to religion, if you distill things down enough everything is a profit exercise. Just because you may profit from it doesn't negate its moral impact. And reduced enough the only truly immoral act is the breaking of the NAP, and charity only has direct moral implication within the NAP, rewards after death for living generously has no impact on the real world moral value of an action.

 

Back to crazy people being labelled as terrorists. Some would argue any attack by anyone on any government building or functionary is in no way terrorism, and under that slant that's quite true. As far as I am concerned unless you are targeting innocents and your aim is unleashing terror rather than just destruction, you are just a crazy or a criminal.

[Almercenary]

Bitch, it's called bad parenting  :angry: Media and soccer mums need to STFU.

[TAK]

.

[Jerakl]

 

Shooter tries to rob mcdonalds with a stick:

 

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-shooter-tried-to-rob-vancouver-mcdonald-s-with-stick-1.2068636

lol. I'm done.

 

I didn't hear about this.

[Vacsol]

First off - The tragedy was NOT an act of terrorism. He was mentally ill. Terrorism implies that there was a political motive.

Secondly - These threads do not belong on LTT. all they do is spark racist, xenophobic arguments about Islam and religion as a whole.

[Trik'Stari]

Damn, was I ever wrong to ignore you

That is maybe one of the best descriptions of religion I've seen in a while.

Lol perhaps I was wrong to ignore you as well. Just because I'm a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't mean I'm a hick nut job, I'm an outright militant atheist as well. After all, a healthy amount of disbelief goes hand in hand with being an atheist and a conspiracy theorist.

 

I wish it would be more likely for her to disappear instead.

As do I

 

First off - The tragedy was NOT an act of terrorism. He was mentally ill. Terrorism implies that there was a political motive.

Secondly - These threads do not belong on LTT. all they do is spark racist, xenophobic arguments about Islam and religion as a whole.

Can a single person not commit an act of horrific violence with a political motive? How can you say? Who made you the sole spokesman for a dead insane person? Who made you the sole spokesman for all of Islam, who's history is just as violent as the rest of the religions out there?

 

It's not xenophobia my friend, it's common sense. Religions as a whole encourage a suspension of disbelief and encourage brainwashing (also known as "faith"). I can site historical precedent after precedent (the crusades, the holocaust [the nazi's had "faith" in hitler and his cause], the seemingly endless persecution of the jews by just about everyone, etc.). Religion encourages the unquestioning belief in those who speak for it (imams, priests, clerics, etc) and is and always has been a way for leaders to control the masses for their own ends.

 

Since when does terrorism require a "conspiratory" network of people backing it and giving orders?

 

Also I would point out, this is a completely relevant topic for this discussion, as this woman is blaming games, and gaming, as a whole, which is a topic entirely relevant to these forums. Just because it offends you and you dislike it doesn't mean you have a good reason to automatically silence any and all voices that you disagree with.

 

Edit: A few more instances of religious violence, human sacrifices (in just about every ancient culture), the salem witch trials (which we know scientifically were the result of ergot poisoning in the local bread supply, if you don't know, ergot poisoning is basically LSD poisoning), Religion has brought almost nothing but violence and suffering to mankind, only recently has it become a "humanitarian" thing.

[swagfag]

political motivations that the statement even had any credibility to the news and journals... its just a emotionally charged story to scatter opinions

[Trik'Stari]

trik going ham lol, ( i dont agree with u but still GG), we should stay on topic tho

"Going ham"? Lol I will admit I've been drinking. I just cant stand the "this offends me, we can't discuss it" mentality. I agree we should stay on topic, but what else can be said other than "she doesn't want everyone blaming her for being a bad mother, so she blamed the easiest and most misunderstood target that she could, which is the gaming community".

 

I can honestly say, EVERYONE I have ever known that isn't a "gamer" (meaning to me that they spend 10+ hours a weeks on average playing video games) completely misunderstands the gaming community. They don't seem to understand that something like "I hate you, I hope you get cancer" spoken to someone who just kicked your ass in a game, is generally just witty tasteless banter. It's no different than Patton yelling "ROMMEL, YOU SON OF A BITCH I READ YOUR BOOK!" in the movie Patton when his forces are taking on Rommel's forces. To him, it was just honorable competition, despite people actually dying in horrible fighting, gaming is no different, it's competition, the only difference is that in our wars, no one is actually dying.

 

 

political motivations that the statement even had any credibility to the news and journals... its just a emotionally charged story to scatter opinions

 

I both agree and disagree. I dont doubt that the media spins every single thing they can in a way to confuse/divide/piss off the general public, but I also don't doubt that this guy was a self radicalized terrorist.

[swagfag]

"Going ham"? Lol I will admit I've been drinking. I just cant stand the "this offends me, we can't discuss it" mentality. I agree we should stay on topic, but what else can be said other than "she doesn't want everyone blaming her for being a bad mother, so she blamed the easiest and most misunderstood target that she could, which is the gaming community".

 

I can honestly say, EVERYONE I have ever known that isn't a "gamer" (meaning to me that they spend 10+ hours a weeks on average playing video games) completely misunderstands the gaming community. They don't seem to understand that something like "I hate you, I hope you get cancer" spoken to someone who just kicked your ass in a game, is generally just witty tasteless banter. It's no different than Patton yelling "ROMMEL, YOU SON OF A BITCH I READ YOUR BOOK!" in the movie Patton when his forces are taking on Rommel's forces. To him, it was just honorable competition, despite people actually dying in horrible fighting, gaming is no different, it's competition, the only difference is that in our wars, no one is actually dying.

 

 

 

I both agree and disagree. I dont doubt that the media spins every single thing they can in a way to confuse/divide/piss off the general public, but I also don't doubt that this guy was a self radicalized terrorist.

but what do video games have anything to do with anything at all. thats like saying movies make me want to start a cult

[Trik'Stari]

but what do video games have anything to do with anything at all. thats like saying movies make me want to start a cult

That's my point. If anything there are 3 possible motivations behind this attack that I see.

 

1. Mental illness (almost complete certainty)

2. Desperation (certain)

3. Self radicalization as a result of attackers religion (up in the air, since he's fucking dead, unless he left some kind of note we aren't aware of)

 

Edit: I would point out, and this I would think has some grounding in history, that if it was indeed a religiously motivated attack, he would have likely left some sort of statement saying so. I would also point out that "ISIS" has claimed he was one of theirs, however they could just be capitalizing on the "never waste a good crisis" mentality.

[swagfag]

That's my point. If anything there are 3 possible motivations behind this attack that I see.

 

1. Mental illness (almost complete certainty)

2. Desperation (certain)

3. Self radicalization as a result of attackers religion (up in the air, since he's fucking dead)

or he just was committed to it and his will was to do harm so he did it is that so hard to understand?

[Trik'Stari]

or he just was committed to it and his will was to do harm so he did it is that so hard to understand?

Committed to what though? Insanity? Islam? etc.

 

Granted, speculating about the motivations of a dead person is in and of itself, an exercise in insanity.

[swagfag]

Committed to what though? Insanity? Islam? etc.

 

Granted, speculating about the motivations of a dead person is in and of itself, an exercise in insanity.

dosnt matter why he wanted he knew he wanted to do it and knew what would happen but still did it

[Trik'Stari]

dosnt matter why he wanted he knew he wanted to do it and knew what would happen but still did it

I don't think anyone is doubting or questioning that.

[HalGameGuru]

Lol perhaps I was wrong to ignore you as well. Just because I'm a "conspiracy theorist" doesn't mean I'm a hick nut job, I'm an outright militant atheist as well. After all, a healthy amount of disbelief goes hand in hand with being an atheist and a conspiracy theorist.

 

As do I

 

Can a single person not commit an act of horrific violence with a political motive? How can you say? Who made you the sole spokesman for a dead insane person? Who made you the sole spokesman for all of Islam, who's history is just as violent as the rest of the religions out there?

 

It's not xenophobia my friend, it's common sense. Religions as a whole encourage a suspension of disbelief and encourage brainwashing (also known as "faith"). I can site historical precedent after precedent (the crusades, the holocaust [the nazi's had "faith" in hitler and his cause], the seemingly endless persecution of the jews by just about everyone, etc.). Religion encourages the unquestioning belief in those who speak for it (imams, priests, clerics, etc) and is and always has been a way for leaders to control the masses for their own ends.

 

Since when does terrorism require a "conspiratory" network of people backing it and giving orders?

 

Also I would point out, this is a completely relevant topic for this discussion, as this woman is blaming games, and gaming, as a whole, which is a topic entirely relevant to these forums. Just because it offends you and you dislike it doesn't mean you have a good reason to automatically silence any and all voices that you disagree with.

 

Edit: A few more instances of religious violence, human sacrifices (in just about every ancient culture), the salem witch trials (which we know scientifically were the result of ergot poisoning in the local bread supply, if you don't know, ergot poisoning is basically LSD poisoning), Religion has brought almost nothing but violence and suffering to mankind, only recently has it become a "humanitarian" thing.

You can make just as many of those same arguments of atheism and/or the religion of statism. From purges to the great leap forward just as many people have been killed in the name of the state and atheism.

 

Religion, as a system can be used for good or bad, the great thing about religion, is in a vacuum it is entirely voluntary and there is no one forcing you to participate. Of course if you bring the state into it again you can force peoples' hands. But that can go in any direction.

 

FAITH on the other hand is personal, and can focus on anything from the divine, the mysterious or the philosophical. And to inaccurately generalize all faithful as you are does a great disservice to the philosophers, scientists, and humanitarians who were faithful, and maybe even religious. Get off your high horse.

 

As for this scenario, terrorism is about spreading terror for a cause. And its really only a way to try to connect criminal activity to a cause to expand the scope of those you wish to hold responsible for it. Either way only those directly involved are responsible for any act. And to collectivize responsibility for an act perpetrated by an individual is unfair to the entire group you lump in.

 

EDIT: You think ergot poisoning in any less advanced society, religious or atheist, wouldn't be met with fear? Hallucinogenics weren't a common knowledge leisure activity. Your lack of understanding and knowledge of the breadth and depth of religious history is no black mark against that history.

[Trik'Stari]

You can make just as many of those same arguments of atheism and/or the religion of statism. From purges to the great leap forward just as many people have been killed in the name of the state and atheism.

 

Religion, as a system can be used for good or bad, the great thing about religion, is in a vacuum it is entirely voluntary and there is no one forcing you to participate. Of course if you bring the state into it again you can force peoples' hands. But that can go in any direction.

 

FAITH on the other hand is personal, and can focus on anything from the divine, the mysterious or the philosophical. And to inaccurately generalize all faithful as you are does a great disservice to the philosophers, scientists, and humanitarians who were faithful, and maybe even religious. Get off your high horse.

 

As for this scenario, terrorism is about spreading terror for a cause. And its really only a way to try to connect criminal activity to a cause to expand the scope of those you wish to hold responsible for it. Either way only those directly involved are responsible for any act. And to collectivize responsibility for an act perpetrated by an individual is unfair to the entire group you lump in.

 

EDIT: You think ergot poisoning in any less advanced society, religious or atheist, wouldn't be met with fear? Hallucinogenics weren't a common knowledge leisure activity. Your lack of understanding and knowledge of the breadth and depth of religious history is no black mark against that history.

1. Atheism has arguably killed FAR less people than religion over the course of human history.

2. Ergot poisoning was the cause of the salem witch trials, today such poisoning would be more likely to be met with a medical treatment response than burning people at the stake. And yes, in any less advanced society would be met with the same response, mostly because less advanced societies don't/haven't realize that religion is false. Faith, is a belief in something without truth or fact to back it up, and in most cases, purposefully without fact (at least in the case of religions). Faith is the intended belief in something without fact or rational to back it up. Faith in an ideal/belief is one thing, faith in an ideal/belief made up by others, preached by others, and used by others for their own gain, is another thing entirely.

 

3. You are correct that I seek to blame those whom I hold responsible (those who encourage the suspension of disbelief). However I would disagree with your definition of terrorism. Terrorism in my mind seeks only to spread terror, confusion, dissent, and disagreement, I.E. chaos, which if you look at the debate over his actions, is kind of what's happening. Those who seek to capitalize on it are doing so, and those who are afraid of similar actions are reacting as well, hence, terror/chaos-ism.

[HalGameGuru]

1. Atheism has arguably killed FAR less people than religion over the course of human history.

2. Ergot poisoning was the cause of the salem witch trials, today such poisoning would be more likely to be met with a medical treatment response than burning people at the stake. And yes, in any less advanced society would be met with the same response, mostly because less advanced societies don't/haven't realize that religion is false. Faith, is a belief in something without truth or fact to back it up, and in most cases, purposefully without fact (at least in the case of religions). Faith is the intended belief in something without fact or rational to back it up. Faith in an ideal/belief is one thing, faith in an ideal/belief made up by others, preached by others, and used by others for their own gain, is another thing entirely.

 

3. You are correct that I seek to blame those whom I hold responsible (those who encourage the suspension of disbelief). However I would disagree with your definition of terrorism. Terrorism in my mind seeks only to spread terror, confusion, dissent, and disagreement, I.E. chaos, which if you look at the debate over his actions, is kind of what's happening. Those who seek to capitalize on it are doing so, and those who are afraid of similar actions are reacting as well, hence, terror/chaos-ism.

 

If you selectively choose what atheism is and what reason people have for their violence, maybe. You have over a hundred million people killed in the name of the state "non theistic religion" and in the name of direct atheism "stalinist purges, maoist purges, pol pot, khmer rouge, che, fidel, etc." in the last century alone. A banner will be blood splattered no matter the cause. Whenever you attempt to enforce an opinion over masses there will be violence and blood shed no matter the cause. And religion, just like any other belief or opinion, has no power to impose violence without the state.

 

That is a horrific misrepresentation of humanity and society. Stop projecting. Whatever problem you have with the questions of prime actor, reason, and reality they are always going to be a debate of philosophy and metaphysics. If you have a problem with that we can part ways at that impasse no worse for wear. I personally find great enjoyment in the writings and ponderings throughout history on philosophy and metaphysics. The hypotheticals of pre-big bang reality and existence or non in the void before our burgeoning, underlying universals of reason and logic, the possibility of extra-dimensional or universal life or consciousness, heck just the verification of extra-dimensional space will be a great boon to human understanding.

 

Your definition to terrorism could apply to atheists who attack religion, you are disturbing peoples calm, for no better reason than a "muslim" terrorist, one man's opinion over another. No one has a right to feeling safe, feelings are subjective, terrorism is an objective victimization used to instigate a change or response thru the projection of fear. Terrorism implies an agenda to the fear. Fear for fear's sake is no different than pain for sadism's sake.

[That Norwegian Guy]

People who potentially found video games as a bridge into madness wouldn't be any less mad if they didn't play video games.

They'd just find a different bridge.