• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Gunman kills at least 21 at Virginia Tech


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 19 April 2007 - 07:59 PM

Struct, these are semantic and linguistic distinctions that have importance when looked at in terms of communications theory but your visceral response to religious aspects really does belong more in a different area of discussion than here.
Your perspective is valid too and that is why I think it is relevant for you to start the topic in the religious forum.

I think it would have been more appropriate if you were to advise wonder to post her poster in the religious forum rather than me who was puzzled by the religious poster.

I am confident that you feel some sympathy for the victims; so I ask instead how would you express that so that they understand it rather than how it is just PC for you to say it in your mind?

I don't understand 'sympathy for the victims' part. Do you mean: am I sympathetic about them because they are wounded or dead?

What is more important about sympathetic expression; how it is intended or how it is received?

The dead victims do not receive anything besides some transportation.
Caring and 'sympathy' expression have to be done when they are alive and not just to them (if we want to be thorough about it) and then call ourselves carers and sympathetizers. I agree that it is nice to support the victims' families but in a more beneficial/healthful way (praying from far away or closer is not one of the ways).

Edited by struct, 19 April 2007 - 09:57 PM.


#62 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 19 April 2007 - 10:09 PM

There should be more focusing on the prevention of such events (not just superficially) rather than glorifying the dead. Glorification of the dead or the idea that the dead do receive good things when they are dead gives importance and positive canotations to death and serves as a good ground for the production of sucide bombers and other martyrs of this kind.

#63 da vinci

  • Guest
  • 47 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:28 AM

It was said the gunman is a loner, feeling not needed or abandodned is more damaging than just being beaten up, you know. I wonder how our society formed people in this crazy way, nobody wanna die for no reason, although it seems like sometimes. Because all you need to say is he is crazy, if he is then why he's not treated? It's so fake, the dead are dead, what can you do about it? Nobody cared how come our society can bring out things like this, we need to find ways to improve or I can asure you it will happen again. sweet revenge of the ignored.

Edited by da vinci, 20 April 2007 - 08:19 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:40 AM

QUOTE (Lazarus Long)
Struct, these are semantic and linguistic distinctions that have importance when looked at in terms of communications theory but your visceral response to religious aspects really does belong more in a different area of discussion than here.
Your perspective is valid too and that is why I think it is relevant for you to start the topic in the religious forum.

I think it would have been more appropriate if you were to advise wonder to post her poster in the religious forum rather than me who was puzzled by the religious poster.


Why? It does however demonstrate how you are completely missing the point. She was not expressing a particularly religious idea. She was demonstrating "sympathy" through the normal language for it. *Why* it is the normal language form for such and *should* it be the normal linguistic form for it are valid topics for discussion, just not here.

QUOTE
I am confident that you feel some sympathy for the victims; so I ask instead how would you express that so that they understand it rather than how it is just PC for you to say it in your mind?

I don't understand 'sympathy for the victims' part. Do you mean: am I sympathetic about them because they are wounded or dead?


I realize that you perhaps perceive yourself as being intellectually challenging and not simply callous and insensitive but what you are really being is intentionally obtuse and attacking the wrong target. Sympathy is not for the dead, it is for the living. What you don't seem to understand is that the families of victims are victims too. The wounded are victims, the friends and even the emergency responders in a situation like this are a type of victim; even many who just witness the events in person or through media exposure are a category of victim depending on how they experience the psychology of their *trauma*.

The dead feel no pain but religion in our species evolved directly out of the experience of shared grief (which goes toward my first response) and reflects the social action of providing mutual comfort in times of suffering. You can look at it like the cliche of saying misery loves company, but it is true nonetheless that humans benefit from being able to *come together* psychologically and share grief. Like I said you can ask why this is so but what you should not be doing is attacking her for trying to do so. Please show why you think she was being religious? Because she used the word "prayer?

She is not advocating any particular faith and prayer as she has offered is just a form of meditation. The phrase refers to being in the *heart* and *thoughts* of another's focus. However such intellectualism's have less of an impact on most people who do not understand the act in this fashion and the proper linguistic phrase is to suggest that *you are in a person's prayers,* which refers to the sharing of mourning and not merely the *show* of sympathy but the tangible act of shared grieving. This state of sharing grief is a powerful one and really does contribute to the healing of psychological wounds. It is not only good for the recipient it is god, oops I mean *good* for the giver.

QUOTE
What is more important about sympathetic expression; how it is intended or how it is received?

The dead victims do not receive anything besides some transportation.
Caring and 'sympathy' expression have to be done when they are alive and not just to them (if we want to be thorough about it) and then call ourselves carers and sympathetizers. I agree that it is nice to support the victims' families but in a more beneficial/healthful way (praying from far away or closer is not one of the ways).


I just pointed out that you are misunderstanding (whether intentionally or not) the relevance of her *offering* and also the stages of grief, which I suggest you are demonstrating as well without fully grasping them. Rage and anger are also examples of the early stages of grief. A person who is in touch with their own psyches will more rapidly pass through the stages of grief in a healthy manner and someone that is unable to assimilate and appreciate their own emotional states will be trapped in them through denial and an inability to express them.

As I have already suggested this is a valid avenue of inquiry, it just is inappropriate here in this particular thread. It is certainly inappropriate to attack Wonder. It would serve in its own topic, and that topic is not only about religion but the social psych aspects of sympathy, ritualization and so on but please try and better understand, and more importantly *tolerate*, the sincere expressions of others even if you have issues with the expression. Look to intent. If the desire on her part to sympathize with your (and others) anger, frustration, pain and grief for these unjust actions that have happened offends you then perhaps you are in need of even more sympathy. Like I said; sympathy is for the living.

BTW here are some links about the stages of grief. A subject worth examining as well in terms of depression and human behavior, as well as the evolutionary psychology for why religion developed as a response to them and other related psychological states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief

http://www.counselin...om/article8.htm

#65 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:45 AM

BTW,

There should be more focusing on the prevention of such events (not just superficially) rather than glorifying the dead. Glorification of the dead or the idea that the dead do receive good things when they are dead gives importance and positive canotations to death and serves as a good ground for the production of sucide bombers and other martyrs of this kind.


The issue of gun control is exactly such a discussion topic, as well as the subjects of early detection, preventive detention and exclusion from access (discrimination) but all of these policies (and other even more repressive ones) come at a very significant social cost with the loss of freedom in favor of security.

They also run the risk of not just rapidly hitting a point of diminishing returns for their enactment but in fact could end up contributing to the very actions they are intended to prevent in some cases depending on how such policies are implemented through the law of unintended consequences.

The analysis for why we still are a gun happy, violent, insecure, and socially primitive culture despite our apparent wealth and technology is also an important related discussion.

#66 tamalak

  • Guest
  • 73 posts
  • 3

Posted 20 April 2007 - 05:53 PM

I can't believe folks are questioning the value of sympathy.

-Giving sympathy is a psychological relief for the giver.

-Receiving sympathy is a source of strength for the receiver (assuming not dead. Even if the receiver is dead, it is strength for their friends and family).

-The process of sympathy is one of the many things we've evolved to keep our society functional and healthy.

#67 braz

  • Guest
  • 147 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles, USA

Posted 20 April 2007 - 07:21 PM

This senseless outburst of violence is deeply disturbing. The questions is, what can be possibly done/improved to prevent/minimize such incidents in the future?

#68 struct

  • Guest
  • 565 posts
  • 10
  • Location:Albania

Posted 20 April 2007 - 10:56 PM

Damn Lazarus that was a Long reply! Actually thank you for taking some of your time to discuss this. Feedbacks are good for refining our language(s) and many other things!
My virtual visceral view very well could be considered as an involvement to the refinement process. It seems to me that by vigorously supporting this process globally, encompassing every field (including linguistics) we convey ourselves to a phase where we have greater chances of living longer and healthier lives.

As far as the (ir)relevance of the sentences or posts to the original title (which could be very ambiguous to begin with) that we post around here one could argue either way. As an example I bring the wonder’s post(er), my reaction to it, your reaction to my reaction and the vulgar definition of ‘victims’. Pray for the victims & their families. Well, we agreed that ‘Pray’ is very ambigous. ‘Victims’ is convoluted too. For a quick reply I was refering to the ‘victims’ as ‘the dead’ but then quickly realized that one may be a little picky about that so I edited my post and included the ‘wounded’ as victims too (still being aware that that may not be enough). As you also mentioned victims are also their families and many other people of various occupations sourronding the ‘victims’. Then the poster should have just been ‘Pray for the victims of VT’ that would have covered all people and other species on Earth since us and/or other species are interconnected on this surface (assuming ‘of VT’ means 'caused by the violent event in VT' otherwise it would refer to only the ones that where part of VT).
Let alone all this ambiguities, what bothered me was that imposition that, in our case, the poster puts on people, where the average one that does the ‘praying’ would look at the few who do not chose to adhere with them that way as if they are strange.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#69 vortexentity

  • Guest
  • 243 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Florida

Posted 23 April 2007 - 11:10 PM

Unguarded and unmonitored Gun free zones kill people in my opinion. This tragic event could have been prevented if the school administration had taken the responsibility for the lives of the students. By creating a so called Gun Free Zone without taking the responsibility to enforce the rule for the safety and defense of the students they open the door for events like this to take place.

We need to get this into the public debate. Simply stated if the government or any organization makes rules or laws that restrict the inalienable right of self defense of the individual then they should step up and take responsibility for that defense. The problem is that one does not necessarily lead to the other. For far too long governments have been taking away the right of self defense of the individual while not taking on the responsibility to secure the persons who are disarmed by the rule or law.

Is it not reasonable to assume that when the government takes away someones right to self defense that they should then take on the responsibility of defending that person?
When our natural rights are succeeded to the government or organization is it not reasonable for that government or organization to take up the responsibility that those rights guaranteed us?

I have it summed up in this short youtube video.

Unguarded Gun Free Zones Kill People

How many times have you walked into a building with a sign that read no guns allowed? I can hardly count them. Very rarely did anyone at the door check to ensure that everyone obeyed the rule. If a person is disarmed by a rule or law then the government or organization making this rule must step up and take responsibility for our self defense. Nothing less is reasonable in my opinion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users