Cho Seung-hui decision to kill 31 people in Virginia Tech on April 16, 2006, rational or irrational?

Refer to this thread for discussion: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65449

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29154656.jpg

his plays: (he was English major)

http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/richard-mcbeef-cover-page/20070417134109990001

He must have been rational at some point to put all of this together. The videos, writings, etc. To him it likely would be irrational to not carry out his plan.

Posting his staged photo is just what he would have wanted. Maybe we shouldn't glorify this murderer. Just a thought.....

Posting his staged photo is just what he would have wanted. Maybe we shouldn't glorify this murderer. Just a thought.....

or maybe we should all find logic in it all and prevent any of this from happening. Instead of hiding ourselves and saying he was illogical, actually decide what went wrong and how it could have been prevented.

or maybe we should all find logic in it all and prevent any of this from happening. Instead of hiding ourselves and saying he was illogical, actually decide what went wrong and how it could have been prevented.With his own personal James Bond poster in the background? He obviously wasn't a loser or he wouldn't be at VT. He obviously wasn't stupid either. So I can't say he was ALL rational or ALL IRRAtional. He isn't a hero.

In his state of mind, this was a rational choice.

Essentially, this was just an elaborate way for him to commit suicide. By doing it this way, he guaranteed he would have the attention in death that he so lacked in life.

well Buffalo Roam on another thread says he is irrational.

well Buffalo Roam on another thread says he is irrational.BR is hardly qualified to decide about rationality!!!

In his state of mind, this was a rational choice.

Essentially, this was just an elaborate way for him to commit suicide. By doing it this way, he guaranteed he would have the attention in death that he so lacked in life.

I agree, making the videos, leaving a note, posting the package to NBC, cutting his hair, the planning (buying the gun well in advance, having a backup weapon and lots of ammo), all screams for attention.

I agree, making the videos, leaving a note, posting the package to NBC, cutting his hair, the planning (buying the gun well in advance, having a backup weapon and lots of ammo), all screams for attention.
And he's getting what he wanted. The media will make a fortune off of him.

Anyone know where there's a printable version of these plays?

Anyone know where there's a printable version of these plays?

Nevermind.

well basically in the plays he describes himself as the 13-year old boy and how he is treated by his family. Thats all.

Genji

BR is hardly qualified to decide about rationality!!!

Genji making judgments as to rationality? ROTFLMAO,

April 20th is Friday. Brace yourselves America, copycats are on the way.

It sounds to me that he was putting the blame on his parents:

"You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."

Much to specific to be blaming the public at large.

He is mostly rational - but on CNN he is rambling about strange stuff :
Jesus love me , he likes to induce cancer into my brain ......
And later : I am doing this for my children ???? and for my brothers and sisters that you have f*cked......

He seems to be rational enough to plan and execute this .....but he is not quite normal ...........

It sounds to me that he was putting the blame on his parents:

"You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."

Much to specific to be blaming the public at large.

Parents?!!! He clearly stated that it was his comrades, students around him, with which he carried on his life so swiftly.

he wanted to kill the people who outcasted him, and then commit suicide.

there is no reading between the lines, he even said it himself. people need to stop looking for "complex reasons"


he killed some people and commited suicide, and we wont stop it happening ever again, it will happen again and we have to understand that we cannot control the actions of ever single human on the planet. bad things happen because we are not all peacefull hippies.


peace.

LSD anyone?

we have been violent since our species started out, and we are sill violent now. we will always be violent and kill each other. we need to stop thinking we can change it because we cant, and statistics prove this,

WE ARE ANIMALS WE ARE VIOLENT,

sorry for the cappital letters i will refrain in future :)


peace.

I must say I can't help sympathizing with Cho. It is obvious that he was mentally distrubed. He and people like him usually end up as a lensed mirror of the world around them. They go out in a blaze of fustration despair. I've listened to the evaluations of this guys by his peers or immediate classmates such as the roommate. I commend his roommate for trying to draw him but we could all try alittle harder to be more caring and attentive to the people around.

Ultimately we can only blame Cho so much. It was the world around him that both failed him and failed themselves. He was a time bomb waiting to go off. He'd been set by perhaps his parents or significant others in the past, wired perhaps even from birth a disaster waiting to happen. In a University where the last thing young adults are concerned about is lending assistance, caring about others. How much could have avoided if more had reached out or tried to befriend this troubled person.

We see people like Cho walk through our lives all the time. The won't look at us eye to eye. They can't hope to correct themselves. Cho couldn't have hoped to correct himself. It's up to us. We're the difussers.

Lend a hand, a listening ear, a word of advice, lend your conscious. 33 people didn't have to die.

You gave possible reasons why he snapped, but those should never be considered excuses, which you seem to be doing to a degree Saquist.

We all treat reasons as excuses from time to time, too often I'm afraid.

You gave possible reasons why he snapped, but those should never be considered excuses, which you seem to be doing to a degree Saquist.

We all treat reasons as excuses from time to time, too often I'm afraid.

we treat problems, not hide them away labeled as "insane". Saquist is 100% correct.

I never said he probably wasn't loved on and communicated with as he should have been, but there are reasons he did what he did, not excuses.

I must say I can't help sympathizing with Cho. It is obvious that he was mentally distrubed. He and people like him usually end up as a lensed mirror of the world around them. They go out in a blaze of fustration despair. I've listened to the evaluations of this guys by his peers or immediate classmates such as the roommate. I commend his roommate for trying to draw him but we could all try alittle harder to be more caring and attentive to the people around.

Ultimately we can only blame Cho so much. It was the world around him that both failed him and failed themselves. He was a time bomb waiting to go off. He'd been set by perhaps his parents or significant others in the past, wired perhaps even from birth a disaster waiting to happen. In a University where the last thing young adults are concerned about is lending assistance, caring about others. How much could have avoided if more had reached out or tried to befriend this troubled person.

We see people like Cho walk through our lives all the time. The won't look at us eye to eye. They can't hope to correct themselves. Cho couldn't have hoped to correct himself. It's up to us. We're the difussers.

Lend a hand, a listening ear, a word of advice, lend your conscious. 33 people didn't have to die.

I must admit , that I am a bit disappointed with the mental institution he went to in 2005 ...........they let him go ..........I still wonder if they diagnosed him correctly ..........

I never said he probably wasn't loved on and communicated with as he should have been, but there are reasons he did what he did, not excuses.

I see life as past and future and current. Ok. Whats done had been done. They died and he died. What should be done now? Students should help alienated individuals and make them accepted into society. That's future as well as current.

Saquist gave some very good reasons for what he did, the poor confused souls of this world do need more reaching out to, we should all do more of it.

I must say I can't help sympathizing with Cho. It is obvious that he was mentally distrubed. He and people like him usually end up as a lensed mirror of the world around them. They go out in a blaze of frustration despair. I've listened to the evaluations of this guys by his peers or immediate classmates such as the roommate. I commend his roommate for trying to draw him but we could all try a little harder to be more caring and attentive to the people around.

Ultimately we can only blame Cho so much. It was the world around him that both failed him and failed themselves. He was a time bomb waiting to go off. He'd been set by perhaps his parents or significant others in the past, wired perhaps even from birth a disaster waiting to happen. In a University where the last thing young adults are concerned about is lending assistance, caring about others. How much could have avoided if more had reached out or tried to befriend this troubled person.

We see people like Cho walk through our lives all the time. The won't look at us eye to eye. They can't hope to correct themselves. Cho couldn't have hoped to correct himself. It's up to us. We're the difussers.

Lend a hand, a listening ear, a word of advice, lend your conscious. 33 people didn't have to die.

Well said. Those are my thoughts exactly. I had a discussion with my wife this morning about it. She was saying that (according to the the news reports) his behavior prior to the shooting was "weird", and I was saying that his actions were more akin to being withdrawn and "in a shell". The whole paradox of it is it's obvious he wanted/needed friends, yet the same antisocial behaviors that develop while a person is feeling isolated tend to push people away. He is one of those cases where socializing with him would have been really one sided in the beginning - it would have required us (not him) to do all the legwork in getting through his shell.

I voted "rational" - I think his actions were stupid, not crazy.

Sputnik

I must admit , that I am a bit disappointed with the mental institution he went to in 2005 ...........they let him go ..........I still wonder if they diagnosed him correctly ..........

Why be disappointed in the institution, by law they couldn't hold him, and he was free to leave at any time he chose, the people to be disappointed in is the government that made these laws, in the sixties and has no responsibility to protect you, and then take away your ability to defend your self, why do these things happen in schools? could it be that the Schools are a gun free zone? by law, and you as a responsible citizen obey those laws that say you can't have a gun there, but do the criminals? do the people like Cho? no they make their statements no matter how twisted in the schools because they know that they will have no opposition until after they have thrown their temper tantrum and achieved the notoriety that they seek, at the expence of the innocent.

i do agree with saquist people like him need to be accepted into social groups and not alienated from society,

we all see loners and troubled people like cho without many friends to support them and i sometimes wonder what is going on inside the minds of such people, you can see hurt in the eyes. i feel sad seeng people look that way.


ahh i almost feel human for a second *snaps out of it* .

screw him and screw them its nature :)

peace.

ahh i almost feel human for a second *snaps out of it* .

screw him and screw them its nature :)

peace.

no. That is wrong. don't snap out of it, or else they will come and more deaths will follow. Care for them. Say hi to one you see alone, start a conversation, offer something free. Do react.



"As you do unto others, do unto yourself"

Saquist

We see people like Cho walk through our lives all the time. The won't look at us eye to eye. They can't hope to correct themselves. Cho couldn't have hoped to correct himself. It's up to us. We're the difussers.

Lend a hand, a listening ear, a word of advice, lend your conscious. 33 people didn't have to die.

Bull Shit:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/poetry-professor-had-expelled-killer/20070418181009990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

In September 2005, Cho was enrolled in Giovanni's introduction to creative writing class. From the beginning, he began building a wall between himself and the rest of the class.

He wore sunglasses to class and pulled his maroon knit cap down low over his forehead. When she tried to get him to participate in class discussion, his answer was silence.

It was more invasive.

"Violent is like, 'I'm going to do this,"' said Giovanni, a three-time NAACP Image Award winner who is sometimes called "the princess of black poetry." This was more like a personal violation, as if Cho were objectifying his subjects, "doing thing to your body parts."

"It's not like, 'I'll rip your heart out,"' she recalled. "It's that, 'Your bra is torn,and I'm looking at your flesh."'

His work had no meter or structure or rhyme scheme. To Giovanni, it was simply "a tirade."

Roy alerted student affairs, the dean's office, even the campus police, but each said there was nothing they could do if Cho had made no overt threats against himself or others. So Roy took him on as a kind of personal tutor.

"There was no writing. I wasn't teaching him anything, and he didn't want to learn anything," she said. "And I finally realized either I was going to lose my class, or Mr. Cho had to leave."


Giovanni wrote a letter to then-department head Lucinda Roy, who removed Cho.

Suitemates and others have said Cho rejected their overtures of friendship. Roy sensed that Cho's isolation might be largely self-imposed.

"He was actually quite arrogant and could be quite obnoxious, and was also deeply, it seemed, insecure," she said.

Giovanni encountered Cho only once after she had him removed from her class. She was walking down a path on the main campus and noticed him coming toward her. They maintained eye contact until passing each other.

And this says it all, he was a bully and was trying to intimidate, and that is the problem, the PC say we can't confront a bully we have to understand him, and that we are as much at fault for him being a bully as he is, what a bunch of psychobabble, Bullies have to be confronted and taken care of by the school as early as possible and it need to be recognized that no one is responsible for a bullies behavior but he himself, and that he must take full responsibility for his actions, and face full sanctions for that behavior.


Giovanni, who had survived lung cancer, was determined she would not blink first.

"I was not going to look away as if I were afraid," she said. "To me he was a bully, and I had no fear of this child."

no. That is wrong. don't snap out of it, or else they will come and more deaths will follow. Care for them. Say hi to one you see alone, start a conversation, offer something free. Do react.



"As you do unto others, do unto yourself"

i am actualy a very nice person i know from reading my posts people might think i am harsh, but far from it. i am very polite and i do ofer my time to people that seem hurt or lonely.

i do start convosations with random people all the time, thats why i know so many people because i am not shy. my wife usualy is the opposite and is very reserved and judgemental of strangers,

a stranger is a friend you havent met yet :)

she usualy doesent like me talking to complete strangers (especialy if they are women)


peace.

domestic:

The whole paradox of it is it's obvious he wanted/needed friends, yet the same antisocial behaviors that develop while a person is feeling isolated tend to push people away. He is one of those cases where socializing with him would have been really one sided in the beginning - it would have required us (not him) to do all the legwork in getting through his shell.


I agree, to an extent. Someone who has been neglected socially is harder to socialize with, merely because they become suspicious of your motives.

But it's NOT difficult to break down the barriers of even the most anti-social, if you are sincere and consistent. Smile, show a genuine interest, invite them to lunch. If they are alone, ask to join then.

I sympathize with Cho. I'm socially awkward (not to the same degree, I'm guessing), I hate crowds, and I get those embarassing pauses in conversations. I feel like a spectator in groups. There is a bit of evidence to suggest that this problem is genetic, and it runs down my mother's side.

I've tried to form connections with people in the past, and been pushed away. This leads to resentment and anger on my behalf, and the vindication of the notion that people are generally insincere when they express interest towards you.
There is also a feeling of failure, as you aren't able to maintain a simple relationship with a fellow human being. Sometimes life seems stagnant without any meaningful human contact.

Nothing makes me happier than someone coming up to me, smiling, and being genuinely happy to see me. Or showing a little appreciation. Sadly, I seem to only get such behaviour from a dog (despite the fact that I'm polite and courteous during the first encounter), which is why I'm fonder of animals than people.

I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that if just one person had approached Cho that day, smiled, and acted happy to see him, his resentment would have melted away, and the shooting spree would have been forgotten.

I think that the big problem is that socially 'inept' people are treated with ridicule and scorn. If you are physically crippled, people are eternally patient, and make every allowance. You receive bucketloads of sympathy. Why can't people be a little more patient and accepting of the introverted?

It would be pay off in the end. Fewer traumatized human beings. Fewer crimes of hatred and frustration.

I can imagine what will happen in the aftermath of this atrocity. Some will try to forget it. Others will take it as proof that complacency leads to disaster, and that tighter security measures are required: More searches, metal detectors, stricter firearm controls.

Civil liberties will be further restricted. Students will be further sheltered. And there will 'security'.

Until the next massacre.

"princess of black poetry"

why is "black poetry" seperate to "white poetry"

or by black does that mean dark or sinister poetry? if so i take back my racial statement and receed back into my cave.

peace

and receed back into my cave.


Oh EFC don't recede back into the cave. :bawl:

http://finebushpeople.co.za/mouse1w.jpg

domestic:


I agree, to an extent. Someone who has been neglected socially is harder to socialize with, merely because they become suspicious of your motives.

But it's NOT difficult to break down the barriers of even the most anti-social, if you are sincere and consistent. Smile, show a genuine interest, invite them to lunch. If they are alone, ask to join then.

I sympathize with Cho. I'm socially awkward (not to the same degree, I'm guessing), I hate crowds, and I get those embarassing pauses in conversations. I feel like a spectator in groups. There is a bit of evidence to suggest that this problem is genetic, and it runs down my mother's side.

I've tried to form connections with people in the past, and been pushed away. This leads to resentment and anger on my behalf, and the vindication of the notion that people are generally insincere when they express interest towards you.
There is also a feeling of failure, as you aren't able to maintain a simple relationship with a fellow human being. Sometimes life seems stagnant without any meaningful human contact.

Nothing makes me happier than someone coming up to me, smiling, and being genuinely happy to see me. Or showing a little appreciation. Sadly, I seem to only get such behaviour from a dog (despite the fact that I'm polite and courteous during the first encounter), which is why I'm fonder of animals than people.

I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that if just one person had approached Cho that day, smiled, and acted happy to see him, his resentment would have melted away, and the shooting spree would have been forgotten.

I think that the big problem is that socially 'inept' people are treated with ridicule and scorn. If you are physically crippled, people are eternally patient, and make every allowance. You receive bucketloads of sympathy. Why can't people be a little more patient and accepting of the introverted?

It would be pay off in the end. Fewer traumatized human beings. Fewer crimes of hatred and frustration.

I can imagine what will happen in the aftermath of this atrocity. Some will try to forget it. Others will take it as proof that complacency leads to disaster, and that tighter security measures are required: More searches, metal detectors, stricter firearm controls.

Civil liberties will be further restricted. Students will be further sheltered. And there will 'security'.

Until the next shooting.



i am genuinly happy to read your posts! and i would be your friend you seem cool to me,

:)

peace.

Oh EFC don't recede back into the cave. :bawl:

http://finebushpeople.co.za/mouse1w.jpg

that picture is cute, i spent about 2 hours the other day just sitting in a park watching squirrels eat nuts, i like watching little animals grasp onto food and eat it.

it looks funny and human like,


peace.

Let me say first that I'm taking a 20 day break from posting here, that being said I couldn't help but to comment.

You are all making very excellent points, everything you say rings true in some sense. Cho was clearly not rational (as no rational person would kill 32 people) this problem can't be easily solved. From what I've learned of Cho he probably wasn't following the right path. I don't think this guy liked majoring in english, it would seem to me he hated it. Think about it, if you're attending a University and you enjoy your major why go and kill everyone in school?

So I classify the Universities first error was letting this fellow major in something he really hated (though he might not have known this). They should be required to test and find something each person will enjoy, if they can this will be avoided.

Next I move onto whether he's evil or to be forgiven. I wouldn't say Cho can be forgiven as he's responsible for killing so many, the main thing to remember is the students didn't kill Cho, so no matter how bad his lonliness was killing them certainly wasn't an answer.

Could he have been helped? Some here suggest holding him against his will would be the best choice, unfortunately there must be a clear intent to do this... I believe having a clear intent (to harm) is the only reason to hold someone. If he said "I'm going to kill everyone" then certainly hold him for awhile until he's stablized. Why the hospital he was at in 2005 let him leave is beyond me, but then again maybe not... you see I'm on antidepressants and seeing a psychiatrist so I know something about that.

When you're getting therapy or seeing a doctor for a mental disorder they don't actually have any clue what's wrong. What usually happens is they'll listen, if you claim you're depressed they'll prescribe you medication, if you're angry they'll give you medication... talking doesn't help because you don't wanna talk you wanna feel better. Basically having a psych degree means nothing, it's all about who you're dealing with and whether they have a full grasp of psychology. Most of the time these people are so blind and stupid you know more about how you feel than they do! That's why they let Cho leave, they have absolutely no clue what they're doing my friends. If they did they'd have realized someone that's upset and angry will eventually have fantasy's of killing.

Moving on... I don't pity Cho, I don't hate Cho... I wouldn't kill Cho if I knew this beforehand. It's likely I would warn students, then let faculty know. I admitt one thing here friends... why Cho sent a package with photos of himself + weapons, why he even cared... it's beyond me. If you're suicidal why would you care about sending anything?!

A few more items to consider... 48 hours after the 32 are murdered the school + town hold a memorial service?! They're fucking kidding me right.... the parents aren't even attending and have no time to deal with this, but they, strangers think "let's have a memorial service for all the campus and invite president Bush." If anything is more fucked up than Cho it's the school, they can't be seriously thinking it's a good thing to do this?! I feel bad for anyone that was involved an injured, they can lay in the hospital bed thinking "wtf are they holding a memorial service now for, we're all still injured and hurt."

Bush made a serious error in judgement going to speak so soon, and this is what happens... Cho's mail comes to NBC and eclipses the memorial service they had making it pale. Even in death Cho won because they didn't want to wait and he managed to cause yet more pain.

darksidZz

Why the hospital he was at in 2005 let him leave is beyond me,

Because in this country with out a court ordered commitment you can check your self out at any time you chose and there is nothing anyone can do to stop you with out being charged with kidnapping and unlawful confinement, and then you are in more trouble than the individual that refuses treatment.

You guys aren't gonna believe this, Wikipedia (aka God) already has info on Cho!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui

It would seem they couldn't wait to add him to the historonic record!

You guys aren't gonna believe this, Wikipedia (aka God) already has info on Cho!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui

It would seem they couldn't wait to add him to the historonic record!

you wouldn't believe it but sciforums wiki has info n him long ago

I must admit , that I am a bit disappointed with the mental institution he went to in 2005 ...........they let him go ..........I still wonder if they diagnosed him correctly ..........

I have personally tried to get a person institutionalize. You wouldn't belive how difficult it is. You have to remember we're taking away someone's freedom...

That's no excuse for allowing Cho to go off. The evaluation needs to be for much long er period of time. More than just three days. I know how Cho's type is. They can act normal when they wish. They have a measure of control...to some extent they understand consquences. It's not complete insanity it's a controled-imbalance. Under evaluation they must be put under some sort of duress. Only then do they show their true selves.

Saquist


That's no excuse for allowing Cho to go off. The evaluation needs to be for much long er period of time. More than just three days.

And how do you do this with the laws as they are?

Answers.com definition of rational (http://www.answers.com/topic/rational)

Clearly he did not meet all the definitions of rational, and only marginally so for the first definition. Cho possessed the ability to reason, however his reasoning was not sane and was influenced by emotion only. Therefore his decision was irrational.

Sputnik

Why be disappointed in the institution, by law they couldn't hold him, and he was free to leave at any time he chose, the people to be disappointed in is the government that made these laws, in the sixties and has no responsibility to protect you, and then take away your ability to defend your self, why do these things happen in schools?

I have personally tried to get a person institutionalize. You wouldn't belive how difficult it is. You have to remember we're taking away someone's freedom...



The reason I am disappointed is that the laws in Denmark ( my country ) , is so different from US legislation .........

The police HAVE to protect people .... and respond quickly here , normally within minutes ...............

Guns are allowed , but you first have to have a license from the police .......
since Denmark is a small country - all crimes are on one computer system .... and ALL your contacts with the national health system is also on another computer system ( medicare is free here so EVERYBODY uses NHS of Denmark )........which means, that even if you only had 1/2 hour contact with a psychiatric emergency department after a personal crisis .....then the police can see it , and demand insight in your journal AND an assesment from a shrink before you get the license for a gun !!!!!!!!!!!!!

For admitting a person against his will , it can be done if :
he is a danger to himself or others or can´t take care of himself ..........
Or : if he is insane , WITHOUT being a danger .....
Or : if he is in a state of mind that is equal to being insane : intoxicated or very upset , boiling inside with emotions .......
Or : suspected insane even though he manages to control himself , if that is the case he can be held back untill a final diagnosis has been made .........

If you need medication for being mentally disturbed , then you will get it here , with or without your accept ........

According to law, not only what the patient says , but also his previous actions AND statements from other people (teachers and even neighbours) is to be included in the psychiatric assesment of the patient by the doctors ................

Yes , you need heavy funding into NHS and police to maintain this ....... we are lucky here in Denmark .............

He would NEVER have got a license for a gun in my country ..........

I do admit this is easier to do in a very small and rich country .........

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29154656.jpg
at this moment more then 50% believes this boy is rational... oohkay?

Sputnik I would check your case law, I do believe you will find that there is no right to police protection.

He was ONLY rational in planning his action , get the means to do it and execute it .............
Even most schizophrenics are able to decide, that they are hungry , buy food , prepare it and eat it ..............

Sputnik I would check your case law, I do believe you will find that there is no right to police protection.


I must admit , that I have not checked it , but we had a case in 2007 where police respond was longer than normal ( a guy fired a gun several times , in a suburb , nobody hurt ) .........it even went into the government , that specified that the police had to react immediately to puplic need ...........

In Denmark you can have people jailed if the peoples sense of justice is hurt .......... by law .... recently , a young man did a hit and run with his car on a 2 year old child - the child is now out of hospital , but the guy is still in jail even before his trial , due to moral reasons ...........sometimes we are very tough here .....but you always have the choice to sue, if you think that you are not treated fair ....... and you can sue if you feel , that psychiatrists are keeping you against your will without reason .........

What is truly sad in cases such as these is the killer is technically acting out rationally against a perceived irrational world beyond change and is correct in that analysis in that context.

The truth is society is built on lies, for those rare or sensitive souls who don't understand the everyday hypocrisy, bigotry, cruelty, selfishness, cognitive dissonance, racism, prejudice etc is fracturing and confusing.

He couldn't take out everyone, so he took out as many as he could and himself. Evidently, the world is not "right" for them or anyone to live in.

Ironicly, Cho is sadly correct. Cho is predictably labeled a monster and mentally ill when the institutionalized and approved masses are mental cases themselves. Just didn't crack because the pig sty happens to not rub them the wrong way.

Saquist




And how do you do this with the laws as they are?

Persistence. US law governing contentious people is more about frequency of occurences. Therefore it need documentation of behavior that shows a progression from bad to worse.

But most importantly it takes a constant figure, a person, in constant contact with the distrubed person to report any and everything...

In Cho's case no one took that intrest.

The reason I am disappointed is that the laws in Denmark ( my country ) , is so different from US legislation .........

The police HAVE to protect people .... and respond quickly here , normally within minutes ...............

Guns are allowed , but you first have to have a license from the police .......
since Denmark is a small country - all crimes are on one computer system .... and ALL your contacts with the national health system is also on another computer system ( medicare is free here so EVERYBODY uses NHS of Denmark )........which means, that even if you only had 1/2 hour contact with a psychiatric emergency department after a personal crisis .....then the police can see it , and demand insight in your journal AND an assesment from a shrink before you get the license for a gun !!!!!!!!!!!!!

For admitting a person against his will , it can be done if :
he is a danger to himself or others or can´t take care of himself ..........
Or : if he is insane , WITHOUT being a danger .....
Or : if he is in a state of mind that is equal to being insane : intoxicated or very upset , boiling inside with emotions .......
Or : suspected insane even though he manages to control himself , if that is the case he can be held back untill a final diagnosis has been made .........

If you need medication for being mentally disturbed , then you will get it here , with or without your accept ........

According to law, not only what the patient says , but also his previous actions AND statements from other people (teachers and even neighbours) is to be included in the psychiatric assesment of the patient by the doctors ................

Yes , you need heavy funding into NHS and police to maintain this ....... we are lucky here in Denmark .............

He would NEVER have got a license for a gun in my country ..........

I do admit this is easier to do in a very small and rich country .........

Yes my thought's exactly. However countries like the US are capable of doing something but America is steeped in the "911 Syndrome" Do nothing untill it's too late. The US isn't proactive untill it's assets or repuation is indanger. You can imagine how long such a country could last...

I did not vote rational...nothing he did was rational...it was only consistent.

peta9, that's a very asstutue assesment, well done :S

What is truly sad in cases such as these is the killer is technically acting out rationally against a perceived irrational world beyond change and is correct in that analysis in that context.

The truth is society is built on lies, for those rare or sensitive souls who don't understand the everyday hypocrisy, bigotry, cruelty, selfishness, cognitive dissonance, racism, prejudice etc is fracturing and confusing.

He couldn't take out everyone, so he took out as many as he could and himself. Evidently, the world is not "right" for them or anyone to live in.

Ironicly, Cho is sadly correct. Cho is predictably labeled a monster and mentally ill when the institutionalized and approved masses are mental cases themselves. Just didn't crack because the pig sty happens to not rub them the wrong way.

VERY well said, I concur.

What is truly sad in cases such as these is the killer is technically acting out rationally against a perceived irrational world beyond change and is correct in that analysis in that context.

Arguably a decent hypothesis.


The truth is society is built on lies, for those rare or sensitive souls who don't understand the everyday hypocrisy, bigotry, cruelty, selfishness, cognitive dissonance, racism, prejudice etc is fracturing and confusing.

True. Rational people are able to see this...I identify it for people who commit them all the time.


He couldn't take out everyone, so he took out as many as he could and himself. Evidently, the world is not "right" for them or anyone to live in.

This is where rationality falls down. What process of ordered thought, based on logical and non-emotive reasoning could a rational person plausibly come up with to inflict collateral damage, because he felt 'left out' of a corrupt society?


Ironicly, Cho is sadly correct. Cho is predictably labeled a monster and mentally ill when the institutionalized and approved masses are mental cases themselves. Just didn't crack because the pig sty happens to not rub them the wrong way.

Given that the majority of humanity may be desensitized, self-absorbed, gold digging and discrimatory, how do you leap from this conclusion to "well, i think i'll shoot some people for it"? Clearly irrational, and correctly labelled mentally unstable.

Just a few majoe points here. Obviously, there are people here that don't understand that he was TRULY irrational. Even a highly irrational person can make plans, complex ones at that.

He was paranoid, delusional, angry and had several other "problems" as well.

I'm all for helping people but there are some here who are actually being a bit irrational themselves about that. In truth, he did NOT want to be "reached." His fellow students and theachers did NOT make him into an outcast - he himself chose to withdraw. And therein lies a big difference between someone who can be helped and one who cannot.

So, before you go weeping and crying about the people around him who "made" him that way, understand that that was not the case at all. It was by his own choice that he withdrew and became a loner!!!

Just a few majoe points here. Obviously, there are people here that don't understand that he was TRULY irrational. Even a highly irrational person can make plans, complex ones at that.

He was paranoid, delusional, angry and had several other "problems" as well.

I'm all for helping people but there are some here who are actually being a bit irrational themselves about that. In truth, he did NOT want to be "reached." His fellow students and theachers did NOT make him into an outcast - he himself chose to withdraw. And therein lies a big difference between someone who can be helped and one who cannot.

So, before you go weeping and crying about the people around him who "made" him that way, understand that that was not the case at all. It was by his own choice that he withdrew and became a loner!!!

Read-Only , I agree with you, that all in all he was irrational ...............

I wonder if he - as an out patient did follow his treatment :

http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/vatech/seunghui2005ord.html

Even a schizophrenic can become "normal" and social on the right medication ........

Just a few majoe points here. Obviously, there are people here that don't understand that he was TRULY irrational. Even a highly irrational person can make plans, complex ones at that.

He was paranoid, delusional, angry and had several other "problems" as well.

I'm all for helping people but there are some here who are actually being a bit irrational themselves about that. In truth, he did NOT want to be "reached." His fellow students and theachers did NOT make him into an outcast - he himself chose to withdraw. And therein lies a big difference between someone who can be helped and one who cannot.

So, before you go weeping and crying about the people around him who "made" him that way, understand that that was not the case at all. It was by his own choice that he withdrew and became a loner!!!

He was "rational" in his own asessment and his own mind based on his own belief system. He believed he was being rational railing against a "bad" world which he perceived as corrupt and the people in it. Not what society would consider rational.

No one knows what caused him to withdraw, some people will from a traumatic experience and to avoid people. The sad fact is some people can't handle a tainted world and especially for those who are innately too trusting, shut themselves down and never trust again.

Given that the majority of humanity may be desensitized, self-absorbed, gold digging and discriminatory, how do you leap from this conclusion to "well, i think i'll shoot some people for it"? Clearly irrational, and correctly labelled mentally unstable.

In his manifesto, he mentions Columbine. My guess is that he saw it as a blueprint to the course of action for "people who feel socially oppressed"

It's as if there is a "columbine routine" or a "postal routine" or a "suicide bomber routine"

Intresting theory. I had wondered how Columbine fit into a person with irrational thinking...was he absorbed by it...did he find it horrid...or did he think it was an escape....

Was it a form of indiscriminate justice he'd been looking for?

He was diagnosed with autism in 1992. The social awkwardness and inability coupled with social prejudice and mistreatment most likely pushed him over the edge. His autism was not so severe to be totally alienated from society but enough to be misunderstood.

I bet he was mistreated for a long period of time even before college. Even in college, even if others extend a social invitation, he would not be accepted in the long run if he could not interact well and that was probably a recurring theme in his life. This sense of prejudice would breed pain and
anger. It's just tragic for everyone including Cho with his disability.

In his manifesto, he mentions Columbine. My guess is that he saw it as a blueprint to the course of action for "people who feel socially oppressed"

It's as if there is a "columbine routine" or a "postal routine" or a "suicide bomber routine"

How is repeated insanity rational at all?

He was diagnosed with autism in 1992. The social awkwardness and inability coupled with social prejudice and mistreatment most likely pushed him over the edge. His autism was not so severe to be totally alienated from society but enough to be misunderstood.

I bet he was mistreated for a long period of time even before college. Even in college, even if others extend a social invitation, he would not be accepted in the long run if he could not interact well and that was probably a recurring theme in his life. This sense of prejudice would breed pain and
anger. It's just tragic for everyone including Cho with his disability.

I've never heard of a violent autistic case.

You know what I can see why this guy did it. He was pissed off.

But he should not have killed any woman.

You can see some of the same symptoms , introvert, isolation ,weird behaviour in autism , schizoid personality disorder , schizotypal disorder and schizophrenia ............
You are also introvert , isolating in social anxiety disorder ....but not weird ....

My best guess is, that he was schizotypic (= schizotypal disorder )..............

Just as I suspected. That's very hurtful to experience on a regular basis.

Va. Tech shooter was laughed at

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

BLACKSBURG, Va. - Long before he boiled over, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui was picked on, pushed around and laughed at over his shyness and the strange way he talked when he was a schoolboy in the Washington suburbs, former classmates say.

ADVERTISEMENT

Chris Davids, a Virginia Tech senior who graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., with Cho in 2003, recalled that the South Korean immigrant almost never opened his mouth and would ignore attempts to strike up a conversation.

Once, in English class, the teacher had the students read aloud, and when it was Cho's turn, he just looked down in silence, Davids recalled. Finally, after the teacher threatened him with an F for participation, Cho started to read in a strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.

"As soon as he started reading, the whole class started laughing and pointing and saying, `Go back to China,'" Davids said.

Intresting theory. I had wondered how Columbine fit into a person with irrational thinking...was he absorbed by it...did he find it horrid...or did he think it was an escape....

Was it a form of indiscriminate justice he'd been looking for?

From the looks of it, it was indiscriminate justice
http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=d11b53c5-450b-4bc1-9327-edd6c8b9b44c&p=hotvideo_m_vatech&t=c3556&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18184075/&fg=

How is repeated insanity rational at all?

Do you mean - in context to the number of people who decide to become suicide bombers/gunmen/pilots? It's a solution to the problem. I don't personally agree with it ethically (or even think it's effective).

A nutbag gets pissed at "society" and decides to kill a bunch of random people. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that is some irrational shit.

A nutbag gets pissed at "society" and decides to kill a bunch of random people. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that is some irrational shit.

True, but if an individual perceives those in the society does not value him/her, it is rational to hate or not value them in return. Remember, he did not value himself either or else he would have lived for self-preservation. His sense of self was too damaged to care. This is a little incident.

That is why we are at war with iraq, really. That is why history is filled with war.

He is dead. It will happen again and society will continue to lay all the blame on the individual when it was society that contributed to their development positive or negative.

Lol, maybe people should be nicer to others or it will come back to bite you in the you know where. If not, don't whine when these things happen because it's cause and effect.

A nutbag gets pissed at "society" and decides to kill a bunch of random people. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that is some irrational shit.

Surely you can view that from a different perspective than just the one, can't you? There are numerous, different perspectives ...why choose only one? Why choose that one?

I'm not saying that he wasn't a nut-case, but ...at least I can see his acts from other viewpoints, not just one. Most of the reason we have conflicts in the world is because others can't see or understand someone esle's point of view about things.

Baron Max

Way too many people here take a sneering tone towards people who have been bullied. So does the reporter who wrote this article (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/virginia-tech-shooting/20070416102509990001?cid=2359).

Frustration might boil over when a person realizes how the press and the authorities treat victims of bullying. The authorities consider them to be meat and to be wrong and evil if they step outside of the role of prey.

Peta9, what about the bullying? Why is continued violence, ostracism, and isolation of a person not something that might push someone over the edge, and why is his social awkwardness likely to be the problem? NO ONE takes the conditions that he lived under well. People who are physically capable of it do violence a lot earlier, but they can simply punch someone around. This guy was what, five foot nothing? He could barely beat his own meat.

A rational person who actually watches what goes on and actually sees what people do comes to the conclusion that people are cruel and will destroy you for no apparent reason. Even their having a reason makes it more bearable because then the world has some kind of logic. So his writings sound like ravings, and I haven't gotten to read them yet, but if you can't make sense of the world and people have dedicated way too much effort to making sure that you don't make sense of the world, you aren't likely to be able to write all that well either.

Want these killings to stop happening? Stop being shitheads, people. Most of you would kill for a lot less than what some of you put people through as a reflex.

Cho Seung-hui decision to kill 31 people in Virginia Tech on April 16, 2006, rational or irrational?

Refer to this thread for discussion: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65449

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29154656.jpg

his plays: (he was English major)

http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/richard-mcbeef-cover-page/20070417134109990001

It's too bad he didn't find a less violent way to show people that he looked good in that getup.

Way too many people here take a sneering tone towards people who have been bullied. So does the reporter who wrote Frustration might boil over when a person realizes how the press and the authorities treat victims of bullying. The authorities consider them to be meat and to be wrong and evil if they step outside of the role of prey.

Peta9, what about the bullying? Why is continued violence, ostracism, and isolation of a person not something that might push someone over the edge, and why is his social awkwardness likely to be the problem? NO ONE takes the conditions that he lived under well. People who are physically capable of it do violence a lot earlier, but they can simply punch someone around. This guy was what, five foot nothing? He could barely beat his own meat.

A rational person who actually watches what goes on and actually sees what people do comes to the conclusion that people are cruel and will destroy you for no apparent reason. Even their having a reason makes it more bearable because then the world has some kind of logic. So his writings sound like ravings, and I haven't gotten to read them yet, but if you can't make sense of the world and people have dedicated way too much effort to making sure that you don't make sense of the world, you aren't likely to be able to write all that well either.

Want these killings to stop happening? Stop being shitheads, people. Most of you would kill for a lot less than what some of you put people through as a reflex.

I don't get a chance to say this too often. Metakron, you are a good man.

Parents?!!! He clearly stated that it was his comrades, students around him, with which he carried on his life so swiftly.

I believe that some of his problems were his lack of social skills, but I still think that he blamed his parents for his problems in general. If you look at the paragraph that I quoted in post # 16:

"You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything."


“Your Mercedes wasn’t enough” – College students don’t as a rule dive a Mercedes, used or otherwise, they’re considered an older peoples car – maybe a BMW or Porsche if they or their family has money, but not a Mercedes.

The references to “golden necklaces” and “trust fund” I’m not sure of except that the later is singular.

“Your vodka and Cognac weren’t enough” – We’re talking USA folks – beer is the choice of those going to college here. I can see vodka being popular but cognac is ridiculous. I’ve been ¾ around the world (from Naples, around South America, to Hong Kong) and I’ve never heard anyone order
cognac at the bar. Most bars in the USA (college or otherwise) don’t even have cognac to serve.

I believe that the shooter (won’t mention his name) was sending a coded message to his parents. Only they would understand that he held them responsible for his problems and actions. I’d love to know what they drive and what their favorite drinks are.

Here’s another bit of his to ponder:

“I die like Jesus Christ to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless — my brothers, sisters and children — that you f***.”

If that doesn’t sound like child abuse, I don’t know what does.

What fantasies!

Doesn't anyone read anymore?

South Korea's largest newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported that Cho's family was poor when they lived in a Seoul suburb and decided to emigrate to seek a better life.

The family lived in a rented, basement apartment - usually the cheapest unit in a multi-apartment building, the newspaper reported quoting building owner Lim Bong-ae, 67. Police identified the shooter's father as Cho Seong-tae, 61.

"I didn't know what (Cho's father) did for a living. But they lived a poor life," Lim told the newspaper. "While emigrating, (Cho's father) said they were going to America because it is difficult to live here and that it's better to live in a place where he is unknown."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/killers-life-of-poverty/2007/04/18/1176696891121.html

A former roommate, Xu Chen, remembered that after Cho's parents came for a visit, his mother took the roommate aside. "Help him," she said.

She was talking about her son, who authorities said was hospitalized in 2005 for depression...

Cho's father once worked as a dry cleaner and his mother is employed at the cafeteria of Centreville High School in Va., according to NPR reports.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9642190

What fantasies!

Doesn't anyone read anymore?


He still could have been abused. There are many parents who put on an act of the good parent. She was probably upset at his disability and didn't know how to keep him in line. Asian parents are notorious for worrying about their children's success mainly for their own image and the hope their child can take care of them as they age. As well, many are quite cold. His parents never visited him not even once the whole year he was in college, his roommates said. He also alone on holidays on campus when his family lived in the same state. Something doesn't sound right about that.

I know because I have parents who were unbelievably twisted and brilliant at hiding dirty secrets.

He was probably molested by a male schoolteacher.

Are you that shallow? Were you born yesterday? That doesn't reveal anything. He still could have been abused. There are many parents who put on an act of the good parent. She was probably upset at his disability and didn't know how to keep him in line. Asian parents are notorious for worrying about their children's success mainly for their own image and the hope their child can take care of them as they age. As well, many are quite cold. His parents never visited him not even once the whole year he was in college, his roommates said. He also alone on holidays on campus when his family lived in the same state. Something doesn't sound right about that.

I know because I have parents who were unbelievably twisted and brilliant at hiding dirty secrets.

He was probably molested by a male schoolteacher.

Speaking of shallow, you sure registered your lack of real perspective on this one!!! It wasn't shallow at all - it clearly proved that he was NOT talking about his parents. He was ranting at fellow students AND teachers - the latter being the most affluent and with Mercedes, and the students being the ones with trust funds.

Speaking of shallow, you sure registered your lack of real perspective on this one!!! It wasn't shallow at all - it clearly proved that he was NOT talking about his parents. He was ranting at fellow students AND teachers - the latter being the most affluent and with Mercedes, and the students being the ones with trust funds.

That does not mean he wasn't abused or neglected by them. Many children who are abused or failed by their parents internalize it and don't blame them because of their devotion. Even if what a parent does or does no do is not intentional, it can have devastating effects. He was bullied repeatedly and his parents probably did not take it seriously or realize the extent of the emotional and mental damage it was inflicting on his vulnerable person. They are his parents but may not have been there for him.

That does not mean he wasn't abused or neglected by them. Many children who are abused or failed by their parents internalize it and don't blame them because of their devotion. Even if what a parent does or does no do is not intentional, it can have devastating effects. He was bullied repeatedly and his parents probably did not take it seriously or realize the extent of the emotional and mental damage it was inflicting on his vulnerable person. They are his parents but may not have been there for him.

For the record: I never once said that his parents might or might not have abused or neglected him. I was simply commenting on your serious lack of perception as to who he was railing at - it certainly was NOT his parents, as you tried so hard to claim and then chastized Sam for pointing out your blunder.

For the record: I never once said that his parents might or might not have abused or neglected him. I was simply commenting on your serious lack of perception as to who he was railing at - it certainly was NOT his parents, as you tried so hard to claim and then chastized Sam for pointing out your blunder.

No, it's you who lack perception and misunderstand the point. I never said or thought he was railing at his parents. His rantings have been publicized and were indiscriminate for the most part describing debauchery. I was using the clips still as an example of their possible abuse and neglect.

Posting his staged photo is just what he would have wanted. Maybe we shouldn't glorify this murderer. Just a thought.....
I agree completely. Fame is what he wanted. As I said in the original thread on the shooting, the media should never show pictures of these scumbags. They should not release their names and refer to them instead as "idiot number X".

Everytime these pictures are shown, there's the chance some malcontent will think, "I'll bet I could kill forty people. Then they'd remember me!"

Harry Chapin did a song about this called Sniper. A sample of the lyrics:
He said Listen you people I've got a question
You won't pay attention but I'll ask anyhow.
I found a way that will get me an answer.
Been waiting to ask you 'till now.
Right now !

The first words he spoke took the town by surprise.
One got Mrs. Gibbons above her right eye.
It blew her through the window wedged her against the door.
Reality poured from her face, staining the floor.

Thirty-seven people got his message so far.
Yes, he was reaching them right were they are.

They're coming to get me, they don't want to let me
Stay in the bright light too long.
It's getting on noon now, it's goin to be soon now.
But oh, what a wonderful sound !

The wires are all humming for me.
And I can hear them coming for me.
Soon they'll be here, but there's nothing to fear.
Not any more though they've blasted the door.

As the copter dropped the gas he shouted " Who cares ?" .
They could hear him laughing as they started up the stairs.
As they stormed out on the catwalk, blinking at the sun,
With their final fusillade his answer had come.

Am I ?
There is no way that you can hide me.
Am I ?
Though you have put your fire inside me.
Am I ?
You've given me my answer can't you see ?
I was !
I am !
and now I Will Be
I WILL BE !!!The ending really explains the motivation.

I agree completely. Fame is what he wanted. As I said in the original thread on the shooting, the media should never show pictures of these scumbags. They should not release their names and refer to them instead as "idiot number X".

Everytime these pictures are shown, there's the chance some malcontent will think, "I'll bet I could kill forty people. Then they'd remember me!"

Harry Chapin did a song about this called Sniper. A sample of the lyrics:
The ending really explains the motivation.


He still had issues leading up to this and there is nothing wrong with wanting to be significant. It's just unfortunate he felt it had to be a drastic measure because of his 'me against the world' paranoia due to his negative experiences.

He still had issues leading up to this.
Of course he did. Many other people have the same issues and don't go on a shooting spree.

I'm sure there's some sad story there. But it is overwhelmed by the 32 people he killed and the hundreds or thousands of people who's lives he has altered in a trajic and unnecesary way.

The students and teachers he killed. Their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wifes, lovers, friends, relatives, etc. All these people are now suffering because of what he did.

Can you feel sorry for him? I suppose. But any empathy I have for him is overwhelmed by my anger at what he did and my empathy for his victims.

Of course he did. Many other people have the same issues and don't go on a shooting spree.

I'm sure there's some sad story there. But it is overwhelmed by the 32 people he killed and the hundreds or thousands of people who's lives he has altered in a trajic and unnecesary way.

The students and teachers he killed. Their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wifes, lovers, friends, relatives, etc. All these people are now suffering because of what he did.

Can you feel sorry for him? I suppose. But any empathy I have for him is overwhelmed by my anger at what he did and my empathy for his victims.

I see but you don't see the chain of events. You don't really care about his suffering or who may have contributed by abuse. But this is also a matter of perception of moral degree and you like many believe physical death is the ultimate crime. People have different views on that as some believe there are things worse than death. He needed to just suck it up and go on with life according to you but sometimes that's unrealistic when someone is dysfunctional or disabled. Evidently he didn't get the empathy he needed at a crucial time. You can extend that logic to the others who are suffering now because of what he did, they need to suck it up and go on because life isn't fair as life wasn't fair to him. If they don't get empathy, what does that mean? Have you asked yourself that? Why is it so important? Is it because it is healing and without it a person can become lost or damaged like Cho? Why is their pain more important than Cho's?

How many people lose their babies, are getting killed, are being raped, are dying of starvation. It happens everyday.

I'm curious, how are these people going to handle their pain? How is america going to handle thier pain? By inflicting it on another because he is not here? A person who lived in perpetual emotional and mental hell?

I wouldn't be surprised if vengeance and a target will not be found eventually just as Cho did but not in one fell sweep but systematic abuse, racism, discrimination etc. People equate vengeance with justice, no matter how buried in their heart, however it is played out, that is it's intent. The same old cycle because society refuses to look at the suffering of the third wheel that exists for the purpose of dumping, scapegoating and demonizing that Cho represented so institutionally in the society.

Can you feel sorry for him? I suppose. But any empathy I have for him is overwhelmed by my anger at what he did and my empathy for his victims.

The topic is a discussion of whether or not he was rational. This is a bit different than discussing whether or not he was justified.
What he did was obviously about as dumb and morally wrong as it gets (at least to the majority of current normal non-columbine wannabe society). If he didn't commit suicide in the end, then he certainly should have gone to prison and received the death penalty.

AT the same time, why would the 'foulness of his deed' overpower whether or not he was rational in making his decision? As has been said a few times, he had his own system of beliefs, and apparent feelings of being picked on.

madan:

Can you feel sorry for him? I suppose. But any empathy I have for him is overwhelmed by my anger at what he did and my empathy for his victims.


I don't feel any anger whatsoever. It would probably be different if I was closely related to one of the victims. I really don't know, although I don't think some sort of desire for vengeance against Cho would be irrational.

In the end, I just feel sad. Sad that someone would feel so ostracized, that they would need to resort measures. Sad about the 33 bright lights exstinguished. Sad about the fact that nothing will change for the better, and that society will remain a place which is rife with depression and a sense of hopelessness, a society where to show such weakness is social suicide. Sad that introverts (think Aspergers syndrome) will be not treated with the patience that they need in order to feel fulfilled as individuals.

You know what I can see why this guy did it. He was pissed off.

But he should not have killed any woman.

That's an...intresting conclussion.

Just as I suspected. That's very hurtful to experience on a regular basis.

Americas duplicitus attitude toward foreign nations is well known. This hights his grief witht he world. And realize that I'm not and can not condone his action countrymen or not we've all felt as he does, that's why I do empathize with his fustration. He found the worse of all releases.

From the looks of it, it was indiscriminate justice
http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=d11b53c5-450b-4bc1-9327-edd6c8b9b44c&p=hotvideo_m_vatech&t=c3556&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18184075/&fg=

I have to say he was searching for justice.
Take for instance his roommate. He had the opportunity to kill him likely first and foremost. However I believe it to be a merciful sign that he did not seeing as we know that he tried to reach out to Cho ond several occasions. Even the unstable know the form of those that are attempting to help...





Do you mean - in context to the number of people who decide to become suicide bombers/gunmen/pilots? It's a solution to the problem. I don't personally agree with it ethically (or even think it's effective).

Do you mean - in context to the number of people who decide to become suicide bombers/gunmen/pilots? It's a solution to the problem. I don't personally agree with it ethically (or even think it's effective).

A 'solution' that is clearly emotive, brash, destructive, violent...irrational (http://www.answers.com/topic/irrational)

Evidently he didn't get the empathy he needed at a crucial time. You can extend that logic to the others who are suffering now because of what he did, they need to suck it up and go on because life isn't fair as life wasn't fair to him. Why is their pain more important than Cho's? How many people lose their babies, are getting killed, are being raped, are dying of starvation. It happens everyday.
Humans have free will. Yes, we all suffer from the various ills that befall us in life. But it is how we respond that defines our character.

If you respond to your suffering by going on a shooting spree, you've crossed the line. You are now evil and deserving only of condemnation.

We have free will. Our actions have consequences. If we choose murder and mayhem, we deserve to recieve what we have given. Death. Nothing more. Certainly not empathy and understanding.

If psychologists want to study his history to learn to detect potential psycho's before they commit their atrocities that's well and good. But no amount of suffering he endured excuses his actions.

Humans have free will. Yes, we all suffer from the various ills that befall us in life. But it is how we respond that defines our character.

If you respond to your suffering by going on a shooting spree, you've crossed the line. You are now evil and deserving only of condemnation.

We have free will. Our actions have consequences. If we choose murder and mayhem, we deserve to recieve what we have given. Death. Nothing more. Certainly not empathy and understanding.

If psychologists want to study his history to learn to detect potential psycho's before they commit their atrocities that's well and good. But no amount of suffering he endured excuses his actions.

Of course it doesn't condone the behavior. But the reasons for that behavior does not rest soley on a person like Cho who was a product of their environment. You could argue that point if he was alive and he had the conscience for self-preservation or thought as you do. What's interesting about this case is it really is a case for society, not an individual. You define evil in a typical fashion because the real truth is there are truly evil people who don't go on a shooting spree either. Evil can be expressed in different ways. When someone is able to inflict misery on others without personal consequences, many will do that and they do. Society gives allowances to passive-aggressive sociopathic behavior which is wrong and then you have this situation happen when someone slowly disintegrates over time.

Those who kill are usually evil, certainly it is an evil act. But I don't believe Cho was a truly evil person. He was too mentally ill with deranged thought processes even though it was rational with his worldview. He also lacked a sense of self which lends itself to an inability to be truly empathic to oneself or have an immunity against others to coexist without damage. It's not that others are truly good people and that is why they get along. Only good people interact from conscience and they are rare. Most people interact from a position of self-preservation while feeling or sniffing out the other partys boundaries and defenses while protecting their own. This is similar to laws being obeyed because there are consequences or a lock on the door. Even though Cho did not speak or interact, It's clear his defenses were weak, he described as "vandalize my heart." Just because you won't speak or interact doesn't mean you are protected. He absorbed everything whether he wanted to or not and that's sick and I feel bad for him, that's a nasty burden to carry. He referred to himself as a question mark. He literally believed humans are assholes and didn't deserve to live. He was too damaged to be held totally responsible, it is literally like beating a dead horse.

He was crippled and he made a big mistake which hurt many people. Those people would have committed their own sins just as everyone else, seen and unseen. The cycle continues.

Those who kill are usually evil, certainly it is an evil act. But I don't believe Cho was a truly evil person. He was too mentally ill with deranged thought processes even though it was rational with his worldview. He also lacked a sense of self which lends itself to an inability to be empathic anymore. He referred to himself as a question mark. He was too damaged to be held totally responsible, it is literally like beating a dead horse.


I don't see it either...
I don't think he knew who he was...I think he knew he was damaged in some way.

I attempt to relate him to the suicide bombings of Bagdad...What's the difference? Is there a similarity between one type of carnage and another.
I have to say Cho was different from these extremist in Iraq...

He's lived here...he seemed withdrawn...perhaps by choice or genetics maybe choice of experience but there was no propaganda there was no leader or cult driving him...Unlike the suicide bombers I think Cho was really seeking justice..

He seemed to need to make a statement on class distinction and selective cultures and group dynamics that create niches to the excclusion of others. In this was he was rational...However...his handling of that overload of injustice most of us can handle.

I've been through it...But Cho seemed to have had a few loose wires or at least a shallow trigger, a raw nerve.

It's actually very fascinating...a behavior study on his family should prove very useful and enlightening on narrowing down these psyche types...

A 'solution' that is clearly emotive, brash, destructive, violent...irrational (http://www.answers.com/topic/irrational)

Also consider what it takes to rationally commit the act. One classic example would be WW2 kamikazi pilots, or the Japanese soldiers trained to strap explosives to themselves, and assume the role of "living anti-tank mines" or "living torpedos". It was unlikely that the massive compliance demonstrated at that time meant that mental illness and unhinged emotion ran rampant within the army. Their system of belief was the "bushido warrior code" which rationalized it as a course of action.
Same thing applies to religious entities where people assume the role as 'suicide bombers' or 'suicide pilots'. They see themselves as righteosly paying the highest price in order to kill those they see as 'infidels' according to some religious role model (ie - as exemplified by the story of Samson).

There was something more. It wasn't just a commitment to a goal this was a different type of rational...this was pure vengence. While both can be based on emotion one, Cho, was almost brilliant, blazingly, emotional...

There was something more. It wasn't just a commitment to a goal this was a different type of rational...this was pure vengence. While both can be based on emotion one, Cho, was almost brilliant, blazingly, emotional...

Whatever little that he perceived that used to be pure in himself is what he was sacrificing himself and his act for. He referred to "my children, my brothers, sisters...that you "fuck!" So he felt fucked over beyond repair.

His photos of him where he holds the knife to his own throat and the pistol to his own head shows self-loathing, desperation, pain, and worst of all his belief or sense of being beyond help. The latter photo of the pistol is the most heartbreaking of all to me. There are many who look at that and only see an evil person thinking the "bastard" should have rid himself. I see the pain in his eyes and painfully the inner child who is confused and can't make sense of himself. It's harrowing to know a child and young person can feel trapped in a personal hell. He was no evil person, unfortunately. It's so ironic and a paradox that he will go down in history this way because of his act when I suspect there was a part of him with a rare and unusual quality of innocence than others which was also a source of misunderstanding and tragicly the reason for his demise. I've witnessed time and time again the sweet, quiet, or most vulnerable children being bullied. With Cho, the hunted became the hunter with the cost of his own life making up for his string of past humiliations. Life is tragic indeed.

Also consider what it takes to rationally commit the act. One classic example would be WW2 kamikazi pilots, or the Japanese soldiers trained to strap explosives to themselves, and assume the role of "living anti-tank mines" or "living torpedos". It was unlikely that the massive compliance demonstrated at that time meant that mental illness and unhinged emotion ran rampant within the army. Their system of belief was the "bushido warrior code" which rationalized it as a course of action.

Same thing applies to religious entities where people assume the role as 'suicide bombers' or 'suicide pilots'. They see themselves as righteosly paying the highest price in order to kill those they see as 'infidels' according to some religious role model (ie - as exemplified by the story of Samson).

Dude, you see all the words in red? Emotive reasoning. Irrational.

Kamikazi soldiers etc are motivated by nationalism and patriotism rather than logic. Religious zealots are motivated by mass hysteria and hope of an eternal paradise.

This was his favorite song and he listened to repeatedly his roommates said. It's clear he was lost and wanted someone to love him/love himself. It's really sad.

Collective Soul: Shine


Give me a word
Give me a sign
Show me where to look
Tell what will I find ( will I find )
Lay me on the ground
Fly me in the sky
Show me where to look
Tell me what will I find ( will I find )

Oh, heaven let your light shine down (x4)

Love is in the water
Love is in the air
Show me where to go
Tell me will love be there ( love be there )
Teach me how to speak
Teach me how to share
Teach me where to go
Tell me will love be there ( love be there )

Oh, heaven let your light shine down (x4)

Im going to let it shine (x2)
Heavens little light gonna shine on me
Yea yea heavens little light gonna shine on me
Its gonna shine, shine on me
Its gonna shine, come on in shine

Cho Seung-hui decision to kill 31 people in Virginia Tech on April 16, 2006, rational or irrational?

Refer to this thread for discussion: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65449

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2007-04/29154656.jpg

his plays: (he was English major)

http://news.aol.com/virginia-tech-shootings/cho-seung-hui/_a/richard-mcbeef-cover-page/20070417134109990001

While I do not have enough information to judge, suicide is usually irrational, and murder is usually irrational.I doubt the man knew any of the people he killed.

Dude, you see all the words in red? Emotive reasoning. Irrational.

Kamikazi soldiers etc are motivated by nationalism and patriotism rather than logic. Religious zealots are motivated by mass hysteria and hope of an eternal paradise.


That's different from a lone gunman. There is no evidence that Cho had the support of any nation to commit that act, so it was not as if he were authorized to do it. In a war, it's a totally different context, because warriors are sacrificing themselves to protect their country. They are sacirificing to protect their family, their God, their society.

I'm not sure what Cho was trying to accomplish. it seems he was alone, and had no support, and his ramblings as they were presented in the news don't make much sense. I'm sure in his reality it made sense to him. I don't think it makes sense to any of us.

(peta9; re the favourite song)

More evidence of the irrationality behind the action.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it is a sad situation, clearly the kid was disturbed. But to have a poll split down at just about the middle arguing the rationality behind his action is disturbing in the extreme. Wantonly pumping bullets into unthreatening bystanders is irrational and there's no explanation that can change that fact.

That's different from a lone gunman. There is no evidence that Cho had the support of any nation to commit that act, so it was not as if he were authorized to do it. In a war, it's a totally different context, because warriors are sacrificing themselves to protect their country. They are sacirificing to protect their family, their God, their society.

I'm not sure what Cho was trying to accomplish. it seems he was alone, and had no support, and his ramblings as they were presented in the news don't make much sense. I'm sure in his reality it made sense to him. I don't think it makes sense to any of us.

I've done the same thing with the red. Emotive reasoning. Now inclusive of judgement outside the grip of reality. Irrational.

The rational approach to disagreement is negotiation. War in and of itself is emotive (driven by anger mainly)...irrational. Bear in mind that emotive reasoning may have some benefit sometimes...but by definition it is irrational.

The rational approach to individual oppression is psychiatric care, support of family, friends...stress relief activities, self improvement activities. NOT shooting people that may or may not even know you!

Like I said to peta9, the poll result is extremely disturbing, almost as much as the incident.

^I would agree it is not rational to an individual who wants to live. But his act is rational(in his mind) if you are suicidal and homicidal and believe the world is corrupt and beyond redeemable. The tragedy is he needed love; just real, sincere love because that is the most healing at the root or core of the problem than what any stranger can help you manage. Meaning you have to care about yourself first in order for counseling to work anyways. He was too far gone and there was no miracle or type of person who came along that could reach him partly due to his own mental state, thinking process and inner turmoil. It's like a cancer. I think he knew or believed he would never be well or an issue would never be resolved and that may be irrational but the personal consciousness is very different than the outside world. Since he was an outcast so long, he formed his own reality.

Baron,
"Surely you can view that from a different perspective than just the one, can't you? There are numerous, different perspectives ...why choose only one? Why choose that one? "

Yes, I can view it from different perpectives. I can empathize and see it from Cho's perspective (as best I can given all I know at least). He was loner, desperate, and mentally ill. He snapped.

Here is the thing - no matter how I look at it, it is irrational. Maybe if he would have written a companion manifesto on why shooting many random people in any way follows from his ramblings...

The fact that half the voters think otherwise means one of two things: 1. These people need a review of the definition of rational and a swift kick in the nuts or 2. We are among a large percentage of people that think it is rational to slaughter random people for no apparent reason other than you are mad at "society".

I am not an asshole. There is a part of me that hurts for the guy. However, it is completely overshadowed by the sorrow that he has caused.

Captain, you have absolutely no understanding of what a shooter has to be mad at society for.

The topic is a discussion of whether or not he was rational. This is a bit different than discussing whether or not he was justified.
What he did was obviously about as dumb and morally wrong as it gets (at least to the majority of current normal non-columbine wannabe society). If he didn't commit suicide in the end, then he certainly should have gone to prison and received the death penalty.

AT the same time, why would the 'foulness of his deed' overpower whether or not he was rational in making his decision? As has been said a few times, he had his own system of beliefs, and apparent feelings of being picked on.

It isn't that different from the beliefs of the rest of society. There are a lot of so-called normals who can easily think of, and will readily tell you of, groups of people who they think should be "lined up and shot." "Decent" people out of pretty much normal populations will indulge in just this sort of thing with dismal regularity when they are allowed to, just like the soldiers playing their games by burning villages and shooting women and children in places like North America, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Tamil, Somalia, Rwanda, China, and Afghanistan, just to name a few past and current examples.

Knowing a little bit of history, I think that people are mainly pissed off by Cho's choice of targets and do not hold to any principle that says "people are not for shooting."

I am not an asshole. There is a part of me that hurts for the guy. However, it is completely overshadowed by the sorrow that he has caused.

He fought back against a population that was killing him. What did you expect?

All of this leads to my conclusion: If you don't want all these shooters, stop creating situations that make their decisions seem rational. It's that simple.

Ironically, this society uses intimidation and bullying to protect people from being justly harmed for intimidation and bullying.

All of this leads to my conclusion: If you don't want all these shooters, stop creating situations that make their decisions seem rational. It's that simple.

Ironically, this society uses intimidation and bullying to protect people from being justly harmed for intimidation and bullying.

That is very true. I've checked a few asian-american forums and they are not only embarassed by his atrocious deed but by his mental illness and bullying. They sneer, are indifferent or make light of his problems or the extent of pain he may have been in. They even have the nerve to deny they have been bullied because of pride and to disassociate from a "loser", I find there claims to be unbelievable but then if they embraced the cocky american attitude then maybe it's true, just hard to believe. I can see why Cho felt positioned from a purer or higher agenda than the rest of the world full of "debauchery" as well as his indiscriminate attack. The average but comfortable lowlife assumes there are no individuals like Cho. Their fine-tuned sense of individuality is lost on them. Ironicly, Cho is more an individual than most of the pack animals but he was lost and individuals(different) are not really accepted in society. This illustrates one of the lies of society which is the pack represents individualism.

Dude, you see all the words in red? Emotive reasoning. Irrational.

Kamikazi soldiers etc are motivated by nationalism and patriotism rather than logic. Religious zealots are motivated by mass hysteria and hope of an eternal paradise.

You've kinda lost me there Enterprise with All the stuff you've highlighted/tagged as "emotive reasoning".

Bushido is a code of warrior conduct. It has nothing to do with nationalism. Since you're a sci-fi fan (at least that's what I'm guessing due to your user name), think of Robocop and his prime directives. Bushido is basically the same thing.
One of those directives includes "achieving a glorious/honorable death". Another is 100% loyalty to the master (follow instructions - give 100% effort no matter what - never surrender). You don't feel Bushido, you follow it.

In the second, I see you've highlighted the words "religious" "righteously" and "infidels".
How is being religious supposed to be emotive reasoning? In becoming religious, a person accepts a number of things as facts, and subscribes to another code of conduct.
"Righteous" only defines something as compliant within a predefined standard, as does "infidel" (which defines someone who does not meet the standard).

Creating mass hysteria, and achieving eternal paradise are goals, but I'm not really sure why you've mentioned them to support an argument of emotive reasoning. I'm guessing you personally think of these as outrageous and wacky, and must be the result of emotions.

Knowing a little bit of history, I think that people are mainly pissed off by Cho's choice of targets and do not hold to any principle that says "people are not for shooting."

Hehe - good point.

Irrational statement: It is irrational to assume that anything in this world is irrational

Rational statement: It is irrational to assume in the first place

Conclusion: Everything in this world is rational

Hehe - good point.

Thank you. I wish it weren't true.

That is very true. I've checked a few asian-american forums and they are not only embarassed by his atrocious deed but by his mental illness and bullying. They sneer, are indifferent or make light of his problems or the extent of pain he may have been in. They even have the nerve to deny they have been bullied because of pride and to disassociate from a "loser", I find there claims to be unbelievable but then if they embraced the cocky american attitude then maybe it's true, just hard to believe. I can see why Cho felt positioned from a purer or higher agenda than the rest of the world full of "debauchery" as well as his indiscriminate attack. The average but comfortable lowlife assumes there are no individuals like Cho. Their fine-tuned sense of individuality is lost on them. Ironicly, Cho is more an individual than most of the pack animals but he was lost and individuals(different) are not really accepted in society. This illustrates one of the lies of society which is the pack represents individualism.

It's very easy to become a perpetrator to relieve the stress of being bullied, unless other perpetrators won't let you or unless you are just completely unable to be that way. I used to think that my own inability to be a perpetrator was because I felt for the victim, and when I'm thinking of it right now I realize that it was because I "felt bad" which isn't true empathy.

This position of a purer or a higher agenda leads to delusion also. I figured out a long time ago that those who are higher, who have wisdom and power, do not express this well by placing themselves on the catbird seat to crap on other people. The higher position is a responsibility and those who have earned it deal with others compassionately.

It's very easy to become a perpetrator to relieve the stress of being bullied, unless other perpetrators won't let you or unless you are just completely unable to be that way. I used to think that my own inability to be a perpetrator was because I felt for the victim, and when I'm thinking of it right now I realize that it was because I "felt bad" which isn't true empathy.

This position of a purer or a higher agenda leads to delusion also. I figured out a long time ago that those who are higher, who have wisdom and power, do not express this well by placing themselves on the catbird seat to crap on other people. The higher position is a responsibility and those who have earned it deal with others compassionately.

The problem is he believed people were corrupt and not worth saving. The problem is you can't make someone value anything. He got this way over a period of time and his collective experiences. That's the unfortunate part. If society doesn't want to clean up their own act, people like this will continue to breed resentment from ill-treatment. Collectively, they can only use punitive measures to counterract it if they want to continue mistreating them.

The problem is he believed people were corrupt and not worth saving.

Well, I do, too, but I don't go out and shoot a bunch of 'em!! I might want to, but I know that it wouldn't change a fuckin' thing. Now if I could set off a few gazillion nuclear bombs spread evenly all over the world, then.....?

If society doesn't want to clean up their own act, people like this will continue to breed resentment from ill-treatment.

So the entire society should have to change to accommodate only a few nut-cases???? Surely you're joking, right?

Baron Max

Baron:

So the entire society should have to change to accommodate only a few nut-cases????


Yes. That's exactly right. Society should accommodate for 'nutcases' (ie. Any disaffected introverts), just like it accommodates for the crippled, the injured, and the physically ill. For the blacks and the gays. For any innately disadvantaged minority. Introverts are disadvantaged in every fashion: In a social context, in education, in their occupation.

You seem to think that there are only a 'few' nutcases, because only a minor proportion of people go on a killing spree. Sadly, Cho and the Columbine kids are merely the tip of the iceberg. There are of disaffected individuals who feel mistreated, scorned, and isolated. There are a lot of people who have trouble connecting with other human beings, and feel like failures for this deficit.

You only think it's a 'few' nutcases because only a few people go far enough to kill people, and catch your attention. Most of these miserable people usually suffer quietly, or kill themselves. And you never notice, because the media doesn't trumpet over all the channels. Oh well, at least Cho got your attention by gunning down 33 people. Perhaps if every miserable introvert did that, they'd make you realize how big a problem this is, and finally motivate society to change its behaviour!

What was that you said about the media leading us about the nose? Yeah, it's quite apt. ;)

The problem is he believed people were corrupt and not worth saving. The problem is you can't make someone value anything. He got this way over a period of time and his collective experiences. That's the unfortunate part. If society doesn't want to clean up their own act, people like this will continue to breed resentment from ill-treatment. Collectively, they can only use punitive measures to counterract it if they want to continue mistreating them.

It isn't necessarily true that you can't make someone value anything. You may have to use a different verb for the process, like persuade, or even teach, demonstrate, or show. Thank you. You've just helped me put my finger on a part of a problem that I have been working on.

Why indeed would we, as Mountainhare mentioned, want to accommodate a few nutcases? It is because the actions of the shooters are the tip of the iceberg, as he said, and their symptoms are the tip of the iceberg of the symptoms that we are having problems with. A sick society produces shooters. Our leadership often wants a sick society because sick people want medicine. With a good line of bull, manure can be labeled as "medicine" and people will swallow it, especially if it's an exotic manure with special properties.

Sometimes, though, all of the relevant conditions have to be brought closer to a norm that is compatible with life. Those who do not understand this wind up with a desert on their hands and a lot of people who can't do much that's useful.

It isn't necessarily true that you can't make someone value anything. You may have to use a different verb for the process, like persuade, or even teach, demonstrate, or show. Thank you. You've just helped me put my finger on a part of a problem that I have been working on.

Why indeed would we, as Mountainhare mentioned, want to accommodate a few nutcases? It is because the actions of the shooters are the tip of the iceberg, as he said, and their symptoms are the tip of the iceberg of the symptoms that we are having problems with. A sick society produces shooters. Our leadership often wants a sick society because sick people want medicine. With a good line of bull, manure can be labeled as "medicine" and people will swallow it, especially if it's an exotic manure with special properties.

Sometimes, though, all of the relevant conditions have to be brought closer to a norm that is compatible with life. Those who do not understand this wind up with a desert on their hands and a lot of people who can't do much that's useful.

If you read the other Vtech and nasa shooter threads, you'll see that the imbeciles of society do not want these people accomodated. They don't care if others are miserable because they want to be able to defecate on who, how and when they please in society. What is really stupid is their resistance to an actually positive move. The serious addressing of social inequities and harrassment makes for a less hostile environment and also for thier children. They don't care and don't take it seriously. As long as people are alive, they don't care about the quality of that life. They just want them to commit suicide or be locked away if they can't take it.

What's even more cowardly is they rant about what a shooter should and should not have done when the person was and is not in their control. They are so deeply fixated on how the world comfortably revolves around them, they are miffed and their pride offended when it goes awry. They start whining and worse pretend to care about their own by the placing of blame. If it came down to the wire, they would never budge if their comfort zone was threatened because it's not really about the 32 lost, it's about them. There is no purpose of arguing about their rules of engagement of someone who has become a vigilante. They stupidly project reasons why he should or should not have done something which I find fascinating. Their level of mental incompetence, awareness and programming is astounding. They don't realize Cho was an individual and not subject to their personal inclinations or morals. They embarassingly and ignorantly chastize Cho for being a coward by taking innocent lives not just his own when that is their interpretation. They want the shooter to care about others and have the conscience to spare them but not his own. Why would someone who doesn't care if they die, care about a few strangers? Society is really stupid.

Not much more I can say right now, except that it's part of the game. You simply can't have a society that both aggressively destroys its enemies and is peaceful at the same time.

If you read the other Vtech and nasa shooter threads, you'll see that the imbeciles of society do not want these people accomodated. They don't care if others are miserable because they want to be able to defecate on who, how and when they please in society. What is really stupid is their resistance to an actually positive move. The serious addressing of social inequities and harrassment makes for a less hostile environment and also for thier children. They don't care and don't take it seriously. As long as people are alive, they don't care about the quality of that life. They just want them to commit suicide or be locked away if they can't take it.

What's even more cowardly is they rant about what a shooter should and should not have done when the person was and is not in their control. They are so deeply fixated on how the world comfortably revolves around them, they are miffed and their pride offended when it goes awry. They start whining and worse pretend to care about their own by the placing of blame. If it came down to the wire, they would never budge if their comfort zone was threatened because it's not really about the 32 lost, it's about them. There is no purpose of arguing about their rules of engagement of someone who has become a vigilante. They stupidly project reasons why he should or should not have done something which I find fascinating. Their level of mental incompetence, awareness and programming is astounding. They don't realize Cho was an individual and not subject to their personal inclinations or morals. They embarassingly and ignorantly chastize Cho for being a coward by taking innocent lives not just his own when that is their interpretation. They want the shooter to care about others and have the conscience to spare them but not his own. Why would someone who doesn't care if they die, care about a few strangers? Society is really stupid.

Peta, I strongly suggest you move yourself to the top of some isolated mountain and start rasing llamas or such. Because you will NEVER find the type of society you want anywhere on the face of this Earth. You can dream, rant, cry and shout all you want - but it's not going to change anything.

There are always going to be bullies - we've all dealt with them - and there will always be more nut-cases like your beloved Cho. In the end, he did only one thing of real value - taking himself out of the way. Period.