How to avoid shootings
Locked
123
123
 
|
On 12/18/12 11:10 AM, Leigh Fanning wrote:
> It seems the entire surrounding group was out of touch. Was the father > so removed that he spent no time with his son and simply paid > off the mother to make a problem go away so he could continue his > wealthy much better than yours life? Are we really to believe that > he had no knowledge of his son's activities? Perhaps the mother was so fixated on her misunderstood child that she could not cope with reality in right front of her. Perhaps the father's insistence on convincing her of her error was the end of the marriage. Perhaps all this caused the son, the problem dog in the backyard tied to a chain, to retreat further into a strange and dangerous mental life. Perhaps his attack, on obvious innocents, was in some sense an attack on the concept of children as vanity accessories of parents. From his isolated perspective, maybe it was a mercy killing of those children. The media keeps suggesting he was intelligent, and he did destroy his computer. There could have been a plan. There are other scenarios one might imagine. Freudian type explanations.. Until contrary evidence becomes public, I think one has to at least entertain the possibility that the parents had no understanding whatsoever of what he was capable of. Perhaps because one or both of them couldn't bear to turn the page and think outside their world view. It seems to me the knee-jerk response to this sort of thing is to improve detection and mitigate consequences, as with gun control I'd guess detection can and will be defeated by someone like this (in part because he probably has someone helping him, like his mother), and consequences can't be prevented in some cases. In a few years people will be able to go to Kinko's and print-out weapons on 3D printers. How will gun control work then? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Perhaps the kid came by his insanity honestly, living with a gun-obsessed survivalist mother who was convinced that society was about to end.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by lrudolph-2
Lee,
Your response is self-contradictory. Hating values IS a value. And besides, I know you are full of the damned things. (values). N -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 11:44 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] How to avoid shootings > Dear Lee and Marcus, > > I am afraid I fell for a Liberal meme. It may, of course, be true, > but at least so far as I can determine from a quick scan of the web, > there is no consensus on the causality that I implied. > > So, at the moment, I guess it just comes down to values. I hate the > damned things. Oh, you're not alone--I hate values too! ...I also am perfectly willing to ban as many guns as possible. My father, who won medals for the US Marine Corps on its sharpshooting team in the 1920s and 1930s and used those skills lethally as a horse Marine during the Second Nicaraguan Campaign, got rid of all his guns when I was born. I am sure that if he hadn't, at some point one of us would have shot the other dead. I just wanted to keep you honest, flow-of-causation-wise. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Sorry Nick: hating values is an action. Verb, not a noun.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Lee, Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: How to avoid shootings
|
|
Technically I think it's a gerund, as in 'my
hating is stronger than yours' which makes it a noun.
On 12/18/12 12:48 PM, Douglas Roberts
wrote:
Sorry Nick: hating values is an action. Verb, not a noun. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
> It seems to me the knee-jerk response to this sort of thing is to
> improve detection and mitigate consequences, as with gun control I'd > guess detection can and will be defeated by someone like this (in part > because he probably has someone helping him, like his mother), and > consequences can't be prevented in some cases. In a few years people > will be able to go to Kinko's and print-out weapons on 3D printers. > How will gun control work then? It will work just fine. We will go to Kinko's and print out something that renders your printed out weapon useless, at least for awhile. There will always be some mod to the regulation regime that will defeat the self-entitled folks that want to amuse themselves by gaming the system, at least for awhile. Its an iterative process. Other countries have gun control systems that work pretty well, at least much better than ours. So we have models to look at and reverse engineer as we iterate. Carl On 12/18/12 12:21 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 12/18/12 11:10 AM, Leigh Fanning wrote: >> It seems the entire surrounding group was out of touch. Was the father >> so removed that he spent no time with his son and simply paid >> off the mother to make a problem go away so he could continue his >> wealthy much better than yours life? Are we really to believe that >> he had no knowledge of his son's activities? > Perhaps the mother was so fixated on her misunderstood child that she > could not cope with reality in right front of her. Perhaps the > father's insistence on convincing her of her error was the end of the > marriage. > Perhaps all this caused the son, the problem dog in the backyard tied > to a chain, to retreat further into a strange and dangerous mental > life. Perhaps his attack, on obvious innocents, was in some sense an > attack on the concept of children as vanity accessories of parents. > From his isolated perspective, maybe it was a mercy killing of those > children. The media keeps suggesting he was intelligent, and he did > destroy his computer. There could have been a plan. There are other > scenarios one might imagine. Freudian type explanations.. > > Until contrary evidence becomes public, I think one has to at least > entertain the possibility that the parents had no understanding > whatsoever of what he was capable of. Perhaps because one or both of > them couldn't bear to turn the page and think outside their world view. > > It seems to me the knee-jerk response to this sort of thing is to > improve detection and mitigate consequences, as with gun control I'd > guess detection can and will be defeated by someone like this (in part > because he probably has someone helping him, like his mother), and > consequences can't be prevented in some cases. In a few years people > will be able to go to Kinko's and print-out weapons on 3D printers. > How will gun control work then? > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 12/18/12 2:03 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
>> It seems to me the knee-jerk response to this sort of thing is to >> improve detection and mitigate consequences, as with gun control I'd >> guess detection can and will be defeated by someone like this (in >> part because he probably has someone helping him, like his mother), >> and consequences can't be prevented in some cases. In a few years >> people will be able to go to Kinko's and print-out weapons on 3D >> printers. How will gun control work then? > It will work just fine. We will go to Kinko's and print out > something that renders your printed out weapon useless, at least for > awhile. There will always be some mod to the regulation regime that > will defeat the self-entitled folks that want to amuse themselves by > gaming the system, at least for awhile. Its an iterative process. > person that plans to kill a classroom of kids and then kill himself is the kind of person that will break the rules. Anyway he's dead and not responsive to the usual sorts of incentives people respond to. Something more serious went wrong in his development than exposure to weapons. `Gaming' is hardly the appropriate word to describe these kind of final decisions in a person's life. The technical claim is just that manufacturing will become easier and cheaper for everyone and that trying to regulate objects will become more and more about concealing information. That's not a good development either for society, even if it does have safety implications. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
I wasn't referring to the most recent crazy murder-suicide incidents.
More towards the fetish folks who collect guns against the day when they'll be able to justify their use. Or the guy who open carries around a handgun loaded with hollowpoints on the day somebody dents his car and he happens to feel cranky. Per the technical claim, I've actually held to that in the past, but on consideration, I think that there are so many potential avenues for regulation that it no longer seems to me to hold water. The presence or absence of different kinds of weapons (or pharma) changes the conversation (both inner and outer) for better or worse. Folks who are about to lose it are more likely to if the means are available. Certainly simple licensing restrictions may give otherwise volatile situations some room to breathe. Carl On 12/18/12 2:21 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 12/18/12 2:03 PM, Carl Tollander wrote: >>> It seems to me the knee-jerk response to this sort of thing is to >>> improve detection and mitigate consequences, as with gun control I'd >>> guess detection can and will be defeated by someone like this (in >>> part because he probably has someone helping him, like his mother), >>> and consequences can't be prevented in some cases. In a few years >>> people will be able to go to Kinko's and print-out weapons on 3D >>> printers. How will gun control work then? >> It will work just fine. We will go to Kinko's and print out >> something that renders your printed out weapon useless, at least for >> awhile. There will always be some mod to the regulation regime that >> will defeat the self-entitled folks that want to amuse themselves by >> gaming the system, at least for awhile. Its an iterative process. >> > Rules like "Don't shoot people" also work pretty well. The kind of > person that plans to kill a classroom of kids and then kill himself is > the kind of person that will break the rules. Anyway he's dead and > not responsive to the usual sorts of incentives people respond to. > Something more serious went wrong in his development than exposure to > weapons. `Gaming' is hardly the appropriate word to describe these > kind of final decisions in a person's life. > > The technical claim is just that manufacturing will become easier and > cheaper for everyone and that trying to regulate objects will become > more and more about concealing information. That's not a good > development either for society, even if it does have safety implications. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Whoops. Category error alert! You are quite. Values ARE actions. A meta-action. And it is probably not VALUES, we hate, but values-talk, and we probably hate it because it so rarely correspond to action. In truth, a person’s values are what they are helpless to not do. Nick From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sorry Nick: hating values is an action. Verb, not a noun. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Lee,
[hidden email] Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Dear Lee and Marcus, --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
To add on to that, the original values-hating email was not a contradiction - Lee did not claim he did not have values, just that he hated them. In fact, perhaps someone would care less about values one way or the other if they did not have them.
From my perspective, because values seemingly cannot be avoided, it is fine to have them as long as they are set by an algorithm that makes sense in context. So "I hate puppies for no reason" is not a useful value (it contributes no information to a decision) but "I hate the fact that puppies ruin my new shoes, because I need those shoes to win a marathon with" is an analogue to an observation (expensive shoes and puppies are co-anathemae). Really, it is a superfluous system to simply methodically observing the world, because it becomes that system plus obfuscated terminology like right/wrong which are really true/false. (I consider morals the same as values, but values is a better word because it conjures up the sense of variables that can be set to a quantitative or qualitative amount). So in the context of shootings one could try to analyze motive in this way: did the perpetrator commit the crime out of [misplaced or overblown] revenge (as it seems in the case of the deadliest school massacre [but not the deadliest school shooting <which goes to Virginia Tech> as it involved explosives instead] around the turn of the 20th century; a farmer blows up a school that would have received money from the foreclosure of his farm, despite the fact that he could have paid off the mortgage with the value of the materials he bought to plan the revenge), a disproportionate sense of self-defense, et cetera? Then we can try to see the error in judgement the perpetrator made that lead to them considering slaughter a necessary step in their goal to whatever. This seems to be a good way to go about it - but because it is analysis-intensive and slow, insensitive measures lie gun-control might be used as a stopgap measure. Just assorted thoughts, -Arlo James Barnes ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |