Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

halonachos wrote:
Yes, but now that he has gone and done this how many people do you see rallying to this battlecry?

The battle cry of killing non-conservatives?

Probably as many people as before. That kind of dedication tends to not be offended by arrest.

halonachos wrote:
Anybody who sympathizes with this man's call will be an outcast because they are following the ideals of a man who killed kids

No, they'll be ostracized because they want to overthrow the state, the fact that this guy killed kids is irrelevant.

halonachos wrote:
Now if had done some sort of normal rally/protest where nobody was harmed and he was violently assaulted then he would garner sympathy for his cause. Look at MLKJr, non-aggression is what won his side sympathy.

The guy failed seeing as though he was the only one on the wagon at the time and nobody has joined him. Didn't incite a riot against the liberals, didn't gain support for the conservative cause, he just killed some kids. Kind of like when a US bomb accidentally kills a bunch of kids in Iraq or Afghanistan, guess which side the parents and people join.

You obviously didn't read his manifesto. Or at least I hope you didn't.

Dogma, you gave me the summary of the manifesto. Now if your summary is wrong then that's your fault. I don't plan to read the ramblings of some mad man who wants to kill people to further his own political agenda, this guy's Mein Kampf will probably be used by other nut jobs but for the most part he did fail.

Did he engage in open warfare with the enemies of the Conservative movement, no he killed kids. They were at a political camp, but they weren't dead set into being liberals who lauded immigration and for the most part kids are usually innocent bystanders in any war.

By the way, people who sympathize with kid killers are usually ostracized for that as well. The people who do rally with him will be seen as terrorists, traitors, and murderers. So all in all the 'kid killer' tag is just the icing on some really messed up cake.

When he goes to prison I hope that any immigrants in the prison system give him a reason to fear immigrants. Then we'll be able to further judge his character because if he doesn't take what they give him then I guess you'll finally say that he is a coward.

halonachos wrote:Dogma, you gave me the summary of the manifesto. Now if your summary is wrong then that's your fault.

No, I didn't.

halonachos wrote:
I don't plan to read the ramblings of some mad man who wants to kill people to further his own political agenda, this guy's Mein Kampf will probably be used by other nut jobs but for the most part he did fail.

So you're telling me that you don't want to read things, but that you do want to pass judgment.

Good job, medical student.

dogma wrote:His manifesto explicitly stated that open warfare was to be engaged in against forces opposing Conservatives.

Sounds like a quick summary of his writings to me.

Although I fail to see how me not wanting to read any sort of manifesto concerning political actions concerns my personal goals of attending medical school. I doubt that anyone on an operating table is concerned with their surgeon's stance on the definition of cowardice or on world affairs, I would be more concerned with their knowledge of medical techniques, tools, and procedures. So I would have to say that this was an attack against my own persons, which is very bad for debate.

halonachos wrote:Although I fail to see how me not wanting to read any sort of manifesto concerning political actions concerns my personal goals of attending medical school. I doubt that anyone on an operating table is concerned with their surgeon's stance on the definition of cowardice or on world affairs, I would be more concerned with their knowledge of medical techniques, tools, and procedures. So I would have to say that this was an attack against my own persons, which is very bad for debate.

If you are unwilling to read X, but willing to hold an opinion on X, then there is reason to doubt your ability to manipulate reason.

Seeing as this has gone wildy OT, ill also add this to the mix, because me and the missus argued about it at length.

Define "crazy", cos I don't think the bloke is crazy either.

I'll try: If you think that the problems of the world can be solved by killing children, you are crazy.

Words like crazy, coward and evil are stock words used in popular speech and reporting to indicate anger and disgust with reprehensible actions.

There is no indication that the suspect is mentally ill. Even if he were, crazy is not a medical diagnosis.

Exactly. It's subjective, and everyone can have their own definition. A medical diagnosis is not usually necessary for me to decide if someone is crazy, or not, from my point of view.

I call people who shoot guns at defenseless children crazy! Also cowardly! And evil!

Are they not all of these things? If they aren't, then I must be crazy!

No offense, and with all due respect, but what do you call them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Cane wrote:
Its stupid, despicable, etc. and cowardly. In just about any culture opening fire on unarmed kids while dressed in a police uniform is considered a cowardly act even though he's obviously risking his life to do it. In these conditions to be driven to the point of basically suicide while taking down a bunch of kids is pretty damn cowardly.

Seems more like savvy to me.

!!!????

Savvy:

to know; understand.
–noun
2. Also, sav·vi·ness. practical understanding; shrewdness or intelligence; common sense: –adjective
3. shrewdly informed; experienced and well-informed; canny.

Explain yourself. How was he savvy in any way?

murdog wrote:Exactly. It's subjective, and everyone can have their own definition. A medical diagnosis is not usually necessary for me to decide if someone is crazy, or not, from my point of view.

I call people who shoot guns at defenseless children crazy! Also cowardly! And evil!

Are they not all of these things? If they aren't, then I must be crazy!

No offense, and with all due respect, but what do you call them?

I call it criminal, disgusting, outrageous.

Pyriel- wrote:Twisted aside, the man has balls the size of Arkansas. Imagine what it takes to for years plan something you know will be inhumanly hard to do (unless you are a psychopath) and also knowing that the consequence will be either your death or 14 years imprisonment in a system that will do it´s utmost to ensure you are never released after these 14 years...and doing all this in the prime of your life never being able to live and experience everything nice that the rest of us do.

Is it just me, or are you romanticizing this crazy, cowardly, evil killer? Imo it takes more balls to serve life than serve death, to approach life with an open hand rather than a fist.

murdog wrote:I'll try: If you think that the problems of the world can be solved by killing children, you are crazy.

Thing is, though, I'd be really surprised if the guy is sitting in his jail cell right now, shocked that the whole nation didn't rise up to agree with him and overthrow. I think he's a sick feth that wanted notoriety and justified that base desire with political gibberish, the same as just about every mass murderer.

murdog wrote:
!!!????

Savvy:

to know; understand.
–noun
2. Also, sav·vi·ness. practical understanding; shrewdness or intelligence; common sense: –adjective
3. shrewdly informed; experienced and well-informed; canny.

Explain yourself. ow was he savvy in any way?

He approached his desire to kill many liberal children with shrewdness and intelligence. The presence of this desire was monstrous, but he did not exercise it with incompetence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

murdog wrote:
Is it just me, or are you romanticizing this crazy, cowardly, evil killer? Imo it takes more balls to serve life than serve death, to approach life with an open hand rather than a fist.

See, right there is a perfect example of how people who are offended by a thing tend to use epithets rather than accurate descriptors.

murdog wrote:I'll try: If you think that the problems of the world can be solved by killing children, you are crazy.

He didnt think he could solve the problems of the world. He wanted to kill his enemies, and he viewed his enemies as the left leaning political groups in Norway.

He achieved exactly what he set out to do.

I just sat and read his manifesto..

He had some pretty extreme views, but there was no way he was crazy. He meticulously planned it, right down to working hard on his physical fitness and having cover stories as reasons for owning the chemicals he was ordering.

Nobody called the 9/11 bombers crazy, because they weren't. They were committed to a cause that they 100% believed in, and I believe this guy was the exact same.

Committed utterly to his cause, dedicated, and as a result of those other traits, utterly ruthless. But by no means crazy.

As I said all thread, I agree with Dogma here, your entitled to your opinion with regards to what makes a man a coward, or crazy. But I don't think that logically and coldly carrying out a violent, bloody and murderous plan up close and personal with remarkable efficiency can possibly make you either cowardly or crazy.

halonachos wrote:

Baxx wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
He is a mass murdering, emotionless sociopath. He is a scum bag, a vile piece of human trash who murders the innocent, but he isnt a coward.

Actually he is a coward, and it goes back a long time in Norwegian history and ancient heathen religion.

There was a troll named Hrungnir, which visited Asgard, home of the gods, with regards to a bet he had made. During the visit, he became drunk and abusive, mocking the gods, but when they wanted to overman him, he statet that he was unarmed. And Thor could not attack him, because doing so would be against the public view of honour, and it would be a shamefull act. A so called nidingr's deed.

In such a context, the acts of ABB is truly cowardice and he has brought shame upon him because of it. He is a great nidingr.

Because he betrayed their trust we can also call him a traitor, or we could call him another word denoted from Norwegian history. He's a quisling, at least in the eyes of those children he is. They died thinking that a cop shot them, they didn't know he was a mad, cowardly scumbag too afraid of his own country's politics.

+1 to both of that, got a little Norwegian history out of this thread

dogma wrote:
They're both people, and therefore both capable of exhibiting cowardice.

In this instance most would not consider what the kids and other innocent civilians did to be cowardly even if you can argue that they were from a dictionary point of view. Firing on a bunch of unarmed civilians while dressed as a cop then later turning yourself in and others to get a better deal is cowardly and FWIW in these circumstances he's suffering much less than his innocent victims.

dogma wrote:

Well, they are logical, they simply aren't pleasant.

Cowardice doesn't, or if it is material, shouldn't, be limited to particular types of humans.

Holding civilians and kids to the standards of soldiers and brave heroes willing to rush an automatic weapon doesn't seem logical, apt, etc. More like naive.

SOFDC wrote:
Heh, specifics please. Are we comparing the kid who has hunted since old enough to pick up a rifle, competes in competition yearly, etc. to the "professional" who went through police academy and then only handled his weapon when it was time for yearly qualification at the dizzying range of 7 meters? I've ran into a lot of both, and between the two would prefer the teen to watch my back by a landslide.

Too much stock placed in mass produced, git-r-dun job training, particularly in this arena. Better than nothing, will not result in effectiveness over daddy taking you out for a weekend on the gun range unless maintained and improved on, which requires individual drive. Many police and even soldiers are not "Gun guys." kinda like people in every other walk of life. Lots of people who enjoy thinking themselves one, though.


Or perhaps a bit like boy scouts. "Hey, how many of you earned your marksmanship badge? Well, now is the perfect time!"

Though don't get me wrong. Had I been there, I would've likely hauled <CENSORED> too. Particularly If I was a child. Even as an adult, it's not like the US where I can go around legally armed and armored if desired. Most of Europe seems to frown on that sort of thing.

Good luck finding those kind of kids in a political youth camp in Europe!

halonachos wrote:The thing is this though, by society's law soldiers and officers are trained to deal with these situations and so they deal with these situations. If a soldier or officer runs from a gun wielding lunatic then they think that the soldier/officer are cowards.

A child isn't normally expected to face an armed individual, and for the most part any citizen who isn't in the military or law enforcement agencies are expected to face an armed individual because we have people for that. They're called police officers, law enforcement officials, and soldiers.

So any kid or person who is not law enforcement or into soldiery running away is fulfilling their societal role and not being a coward because they are expected to run for cover and wait for law enforcement to deal with it. Its how most kids are raised and how society is conditioned no matter what we would like to tell ourselves. If you're a parent with a five year old and you tell him to handle a guy with a gun by facing off with him you're a fething moron.

The kids weren't cowards because they were doing what they were told to do in these kinds of situations; run, take cover, and wait for law enforcement to arrive.

Exalted once again! Civilian kids should be held to different standards and what you mentioned are readily accepted norms.

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:
!!!????

Savvy:

to know; understand.
–noun
2. Also, sav·vi·ness. practical understanding; shrewdness or intelligence; common sense: –adjective
3. shrewdly informed; experienced and well-informed; canny.

Explain yourself. ow was he savvy in any way?

He approached his desire to kill many liberal children with shrewdness and intelligence. The presence of this desire was monstrous, but he did not exercise it with incompetence.

Savvy? How hard could it be to ambush a bunch of unarmed kids and other civilians at a camp? Plus the act itself goes against what savvy generally stands for considering the gunman's violence was dumb for a lack of a better word.


To me dogma's arguing for the sake of arguing while using semantics as a crutch. Beyond the dictionary definitions and logical semantics there are cultural standards and realistic expectations that don't seem to be holding up for dogma.

Cane wrote:
In this instance most would not consider what the kids and other innocent civilians did to be cowardly even if you can argue that they were from a dictionary point of view.

Very true, but that's been my point of contention.

Cane wrote:
Firing on a bunch on unarmed civilians while dressed as a cop then later turning yourself in and others to get a better deal is cowardly and FWIW in these circumstances he's suffering much less than his innocent victims.

Barring the injured, his victims aren't suffering, because they're dead.

Cane wrote:
Holding civilians and kids to the standards of soldiers and brave heroes willing to rush an automatic weapon doesn't seem logical, apt, etc. More like naive.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a soldier to be a thing which is defined by certain characteristics, or a thing which possesses certain characteristics. If a soldier is defined by certain characteristics, then my point holds, but if he possesses certain characteristics, then yours does.

Cane wrote:
Savvy? How hard could it be to ambush a bunch of unarmed kids and other civilians at a camp?

Fairly difficult, what with the whole not being socially acceptable thing.

Cane wrote:
To me he's arguing for the sake of arguing while using semantics as a crutch. Beyond the dictionary definitions and logical semantics there are cultural standards and realistic expectations that don't seem to be holding up for dogma.

Not so much a crutch as a foundation of argument. And no, I'm not arguing just to argue, I honestly find it amusing how far people will go to demonize others they dislike, and like to point it out when presented the opportunity.

I'm a hipster at heart, and that user name isn't a literal description.

Whatever dude. You are arguing nonsense, twisting semantics, and generally presenting yourself as a holder of odious views on this subject. 'A foundation of argument' my ass - you don't agree with how we're using words, you want to defend a cowardly child-killer from being labeled, fine. You can take any position you like. I don't need to demonize the guy, even though I dislike him. He demonized himself with his words and actions. You say it like we're demonizing whole swaths of humanity, as in WWII propaganda. We're talking about a guy who shot innoncent, defenceless children.

'They aren't suffering because they are dead'. WTF is that all about? That's arguing just to argue. Its not like you're just removing models from a table when you shoot people for real.

'His victims were more of a coward than he was'. That's arguing just to argue.

'Fairly difficult' to ambush kids? That's arguing just to argue.

You think doing something 'socially unacceptable' automatically makes it difficult? I'll tell you, it's alot easier when you're crazy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

murdog wrote:I'll try: If you think that the problems of the world can be solved by killing children, you are crazy.

He didnt think he could solve the problems of the world. He wanted to kill his enemies, and he viewed his enemies as the left leaning political groups in Norway.

He achieved exactly what he set out to do.

I just sat and read his manifesto..

He had some pretty extreme views, but there was no way he was crazy. He meticulously planned it, right down to working hard on his physical fitness and having cover stories as reasons for owning the chemicals he was ordering.

Nobody called the 9/11 bombers crazy, because they weren't. They were committed to a cause that they 100% believed in, and I believe this guy was the exact same.

Committed utterly to his cause, dedicated, and as a result of those other traits, utterly ruthless. But by no means crazy.

As I said all thread, I agree with Dogma here, your entitled to your opinion with regards to what makes a man a coward, or crazy. But I don't think that logically and coldly carrying out a violent, bloody and murderous plan up close and personal with remarkable efficiency can possibly make you either cowardly or crazy.

I think you sound like you admire him.

'He achieved exactly what he set out to do'? Did he start a war? Are all the Muslims out of Europe? Is the Patriarchy restored? Will Norway bow to his views? The answer to all of this is no. He is crazy because he hoped the answer would be yes.

'He viewed his enemies as the left leaning political groups in Norway'. That he included children as his enemies shows he is crazy. Most kids don't know the real difference between left and right, let alone have the maturity to cast lots with one side or the other.

Maybe he is sane, in the sense that he knew what he wanted to do, how to do it, and what the consequences would be. But his goals won't be achieved and innocents were killed for nothing. That's crazy.

murdog wrote:Whatever dude. You are arguing nonsense, twisting semantics, and generally presenting yourself as a holder of odious views on this subject. 'A foundation of argument' my ass - you don't agree with how we're using words, you want to defend a cowardly child-killer from being labeled, fine.

I am not twisting anything, I am merely using words in a correct fashion. It isn't my fault if you don't like what they mean.

I'm also not defending anyone. I am saying that a particular person is not a coward, and that many other people cannot divorce themselves from emotional commitments; which is funny considering how deeply many people here despise Stephanie Meyers.

murdog wrote:
You can take any position you like. I don't need to demonize the guy, even though I dislike him. He demonized himself with his words and actions.

So, yeah, you just demonized him.

Thank you for illustrating how poorly most people interact with language.

murdog wrote:
You say it like we're demonizing whole swaths of humanity, as in WWII propaganda. We're talking about a guy who shot innoncent, defenceless children.

They had defenses. They could have punched him, kicked him, or bitten him.

murdog wrote:
'They aren't suffering because they are dead'. WTF is that all about? That's arguing just to argue. Its not like you're just removing models from a table when you shoot people for real.

They're dead, they cannot suffer, that is what it is about.

murdog wrote:
You think doing something 'socially unacceptable' automatically makes it difficult? I'll tell you, it's alot easier when you're crazy!

Your anger proves my point.

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:
!!!????

Savvy:

to know; understand.
–noun
2. Also, sav·vi·ness. practical understanding; shrewdness or intelligence; common sense: –adjective
3. shrewdly informed; experienced and well-informed; canny.

Explain yourself. ow was he savvy in any way?

He approached his desire to kill many liberal children with shrewdness and intelligence. The presence of this desire was monstrous, but he did not exercise it with incompetence.

It's the goals that show his lack of shrewdness and intelligence. His actions will not achieve his desired results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:
Is it just me, or are you romanticizing this crazy, cowardly, evil killer? Imo it takes more balls to serve life than serve death, to approach life with an open hand rather than a fist.

See, right there is a perfect example of how people who are offended by a thing tend to use epithets rather than accurate descriptors.

I'm attempting to use accurate descriptors, the problem is you don't agree with the meanings of the words I've chosen to use. I'm not calling him "the Norwegian Coward" or "the Crazy Evil Killer of the North". I'm saying what he's done is crazy, cowardly, and evil.

From dictionary.com:

Crazy: 2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound: a crazy scheme.

Cowardly: 2. characteristic of or befitting a coward; despicably mean, covert, or unprincipled: a cowardly attack on a weak, defenseless man.

Evil:

–adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.

–noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.


Accurate descriptors in my humble opinion.

murdog wrote:

I think you sound like you admire him.

'He achieved exactly what he set out to do'? Did he start a war? Are all the Muslims out of Europe? Is the Patriarchy restored? Will Norway bow to his views? The answer to all of this is no. He is crazy because he hoped the answer would be yes.

'He viewed his enemies as the left leaning political groups in Norway'. That he included children as his enemies shows he is crazy. Most kids don't know the real difference between left and right, let alone have the maturity to cast lots with one side or the other.

Maybe he is sane, in the sense that he knew what he wanted to do, how to do it, and what the consequences would be. But his goals won't be achieved and innocents were killed for nothing. That's crazy.

Why are you so upset? Did you personally know someone that got killed? If so, im genuinelly sorry, if not, stop getting your knickers in a twist over a mere semantic argument. Of course I don't admire, agree with, or like the fact that innocent teenagers got murdered. But the point is, the dictionary definition of the word coward doesn't convey the word satisfactorily. Me and the missus talked about this for like a half hour!

As I said, its simply down to your own opinion as far as im concerned, why does it annoy you that I disagree? Ill use another analogy using a warry story, cos thats something I know a little about.

Think about it calmly.

Is it incorrect to say that only a coward can be truly brave? I mean, if you don't get scared when your in a gun fight, you cant act brave right? I mean, if you were never scared in the first place, how can you be brave? You simply lacked fear in the first place.

But if you ARE terrified, but you still run out and help drag your wounded collegue to safety, then you have acted very bravely, because only a coward can be truly brave.

Similarly, im not scared of heights, so I think blokes are frightened of something like a bungee jump are cowardly. But if you are terrified (a friend of mine was when we did one in Bavaria, it was like 400ft off a bridge) and you still walk up shaking all the while, and toss yourself off anyways, thats extremely brave!

Ergo, it boils down to your own definition of the word. You can be both brave and cowardly at the same time as well.

The point is, its something we could all discuss for a long time, what really defines cowardice? Or madness?

I think this guy, was not cowardly at all, because he (rightly or wrongly) had convictions and did what he wanted to do. If I really really really want to blow a mosque up, and im certainall the guys inside deserve it, but I dont because i dont want to go to prison, am I a coward for not acting?

You got it wrong.

In order to be brave, you must be afraid.

You mix fear and coward.

You don't have to be a coward, but you have to be brave.

Shooting on unarmed people is per definition cowardly.

This is what famous norwegian writer Jo Nesbø thought about and wrote here in this New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/opinion/27nesbo.html?_r=2&src=tp

He clearly didn't know what the word "cowardly" meant, but he was a non-native speaker.

dogma wrote:He clearly didn't know what the word "cowardly" meant, but he was a non-native speaker.

Aaargh. Did you even read it? He never mentions the word coward or cowardly. He's talking about fear and bravery. Baxx's point, the one you are missing, is that it isn't an either/or choice between being brave and being a coward. Again, turn to the dictionary for guidance: Merriam-Webster online defines coward as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity." (My emphasis). It's the 'disgraceful' that is key: you can run away and not be a coward. It is not disgraceful for an untrained child to flee a weapon. It is disgraceful to attack the children of your enemies because you are too afraid to attack your enemies directly; thus such an action makes you a coward.

dogma wrote: I am not twisting anything, I am merely using words in a correct fashion. It isn't my fault if you don't like what they mean.

You aren't using words in a correct fashion according to any dictionary I can access. If this was a trivial matter, I wouldn't take issue. But it's not, so I do.

dogma wrote:I'm also not defending anyone. I am saying that a particular person is not a coward, and that many other people cannot divorce themselves from emotional commitments;

So I'm calling him a coward, you're trying to show he's not, but you're not defending him. K thanks for clearing that up.

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:You can take any position you like. I don't need to demonize the guy, even though I dislike him. He demonized himself with his words and actions.

So, yeah, you just demonized him. Thank you for illustrating how poorly most people interact with language.

From merriam-webster.com:

Demon noun
b : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin.

He did what he did for all the world to see. Didn't take any words of mine to make him what he is.

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote: We're talking about a guy who shot innoncent, defenceless children.

They had defenses. They could have punched him, kicked him, or bitten him.

Yeah, ok.

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:'They aren't suffering because they are dead'. WTF is that all about?

They're dead, they cannot suffer, that is what it is about.

As if all of the people who were shot died (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/23/norway-attacks-witness-accounts.html for the story of a 21-year old shot in the shoulder), as if the people who were there but not shot aren't suffering, as if Norway and people around the world aren't suffering, and as if all the people who died, died without suffering. You're just plain wrong, dogma.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Why are you so upset? Did you personally know someone that got killed? If so, im genuinelly sorry, if not, stop getting your knickers in a twist over a mere semantic argument. Of course I don't admire, agree with, or like the fact that innocent teenagers got murdered. But the point is, the dictionary definition of the word coward doesn't convey the word satisfactorily. Me and the missus talked about this for like a half hour!

As I said, its simply down to your own opinion as far as im concerned, why does it annoy you that I disagree?

I didn't personally know anyone killed, but why does that preclude me from being upset that dozens of children were murdered in cold blood? I'm annoyed, and my knickers are in a twist over a semantic argument, because of the seriousness of the context.

mattyrm wrote:Think about it calmly... only a coward can be truly brave.

Ergo, it boils down to your own definition of the word. You can be both brave and cowardly at the same time as well.

The point is, its something we could all discuss for a long time, what really defines cowardice? Or madness?

I think this guy, was not cowardly at all, because he (rightly or wrongly) had convictions and did what he wanted to do. If I really really really want to blow a mosque up, and im certainall the guys inside deserve it, but I dont because i dont want to go to prison, am I a coward for not acting?

You are not a coward if you've chosen to not attack innocent people.

Look, I'm not into making up my own definitions for words. That's what we have dictionaries for. If you don't agree with what the dictionary says a word means, then maybe you're not using the word the same way most others are.

murdog wrote:
Aaargh. Did you even read it? He never mentions the word coward or cowardly. He's talking about fear and bravery

Yes I did, and those are both relevant to cowardice.

murdog wrote:
It is disgraceful to attack the children of your enemies because you are too afraid to attack your enemies directly; thus such an action makes you a coward.

But he did attack his enemies directly. He attacked liberals, either by way of shooting the children of liberals, or liberals that were children; thereby inflicting injury on the liberal parents of these kids.

murdog wrote:
You aren't using words in a correct fashion according to any dictionary I can access. If this was a trivial matter, I wouldn't take issue. But it's not, so I do.

Sure I am, you just don't like what the word means.

But anyway, it is trivial. So some kids died, so what?

Kids die every day. Why are these particular kids important?

murdog wrote:
So I'm calling him a coward, you're trying to show he's not, but you're not defending him. K thanks for clearing that up.

Exactly. Very big of you to admit your mistake, and carry on.

You're a good man.

murdog wrote:
From merriam-webster.com:

Demon noun
b : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin.

He did what he did for all the world to see. Didn't take any words of mine to make him what he is.

You called a person evil, this means you demonized him. Oddly enough the application of subjective concepts requires the agency of another, for example yourself, in order to occur.

murdog wrote:
Yeah, ok.

I'm glad we agree.

murdog wrote:
As if all of the people who were shot died (see http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/23/norway-attacks-witness-accounts.html for the story of a 21-year old shot in the shoulder), as if the people who were there but not shot aren't suffering, as if Norway and people around the world aren't suffering, and as if all the people who died, died without suffering. You're just plain wrong, dogma.

I already differentiated between those that were killed, and those that were injured. I would appreciate it if you read my posts rather than replying in ignorance.

dogma wrote:I would appreciate it if you read my posts rather than replying in ignorance.

But it is so much easier to be morally outraged. If one doesn't express vast amounts of irrational anger, how will people know that you think shooting teenagers is a bad idea?

dogma wrote: I already differentiated between those that were killed, and those that were injured. I would appreciate it if you read my posts rather than replying in ignorance.

Sure, my apologies. I misread that. You are also right about me demonizing him, for I do describe him as evil. I'm not demonizing him for political or propaganda purposes, I'm looking in the dictionaries for words that describe what it is that I see, and that's what I get.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demonize

de·mon·ize
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic; wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.

demonize, demonise [ˈdiːməˌnaɪz]
vb (tr)
1. to make into or like a demon
2. to subject to demonic influence
3. to mark out or describe as evil or culpable; the technique of demonizing the enemy in the run-up to war

The first one is The American Heritage Dictionary, the second Harper-Collins. Now I repeat that I haven't turned him or made him into a demon; nor have I possessed him by or subjected him to demonic influence. I do represent, mark out or describe him as evil, as in 'causing ruin, injury or pain'. (AHD). So yeah, I'm demonizing him, but I didn't make him a demon.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote: But anyway, it is trivial. So some kids died, so what? Kids die every day. Why are these particular kids important?

Every kid is as important as the next, and kids are very important.

dogma wrote:

Very true, but that's been my point of contention.

Yea but it seems naive to hold unarmed civilians to standards of soldiers, etc.

Barring the injured, his victims aren't suffering, because they're dead.

His victims arguably extend beyond those that just died though like their families, friends, and region in general.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you consider a soldier to be a thing which is defined by certain characteristics, or a thing which possesses certain characteristics. If a soldier is defined by certain characteristics, then my point holds, but if he possesses certain characteristics, then yours does.

Soldiers, terrorists, etc. are generally more mature, experienced, trained, equipped, and organized to handle these situations and are held to a higher standard by their peers and groups. I don't see how those standards apply to unarmed civilians that were mostly kids. In those conditions running away from a gunman is not a cowardly thing. But to open fire on a bunch of unarmed civilians dressed as police officer then later turning yourself in and others for a better deal is cowardly. To most of society anyway.

Fairly difficult, what with the whole not being socially acceptable thing.

Preparing and shooting a bunch of unarmed civilians does not take much in the way of intelligence, savvy, etc. Just takes time, patience, equipment and an itchy trigger finger. Intelligence is largely based on the decisions you make and these decisions indicate an arguably poor intelligence.

Not so much a crutch as a foundation of argument. And no, I'm not arguing just to argue, I honestly find it amusing how far people will go to demonize others they dislike, and like to point it out when presented the opportunity.

I'm a hipster at heart, and that user name isn't a literal description.

You do like to argue but calling him a dumb coward seems safe enough and to most they're fitting descriptors once you take into account his actions.

To me this coward talk is reminiscent of the comments Bill Maher infamously made that even got him fired. He said something like the 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards because they sacrificed themselves while the USA are cowards for launching cruise missiles from afar. Except in this case the attacker gave up readily as soon as authorities arrived and didn't sacrifice his life, FWIW.

murdog wrote: Now I repeat that I haven't turned him or made him into a demon; nor have I possessed him by or subjected him to demonic influence.

Right, you have only described him as evil.

murdog wrote:
I do represent, mark out or describe him as evil, as in 'causing ruin, injury or pain'. (AHD). So yeah, I'm demonizing him, but I didn't make him a demon.

Yes, you did, by your own description.

Why is this so hard? Are you afraid of owning up to your own descriptions?

murdog wrote:
Every kid is as important as the next, and kids are very important.

No.

Unless you cry yourself to sleep every day, you are lying.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:Although I fail to see how me not wanting to read any sort of manifesto concerning political actions concerns my personal goals of attending medical school. I doubt that anyone on an operating table is concerned with their surgeon's stance on the definition of cowardice or on world affairs, I would be more concerned with their knowledge of medical techniques, tools, and procedures. So I would have to say that this was an attack against my own persons, which is very bad for debate.

If you are unwilling to read X, but willing to hold an opinion on X, then there is reason to doubt your ability to manipulate reason.

While there may be reason to doubt my ability to reason, there is absolutely no need to call out my personal goals and aspirations in that manner. I am speaking from the knowledge presented by you in this very thread of which is all I need. You gave me his 'explicitly stated goal' and that goal is all I need in order to discern whether or not he was able to achieve it. I have repeatedly stated that he has not, it is remotely similar to how the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, while devastating, was a failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: Seeing as this has gone wildy OT, ill also add this to the mix, because me and the missus argued about it at length.

Define "crazy", cos I don't think the bloke is crazy either.

The guy is probably crazy, the saying goes that there is a fine line between crazy and genius. While we may see meticulous planning, it is possible that he planned this out of some grand delusion of changing the country in which he lived. Serial killers of the highest calibur are meticulous in their planning but they have some little spark of insanity that is the cause for all of their plans. The BTK killer for example was methodical in how he killed his victims and planned it all out. However he was guided by some purpose that normal every-day folks don't typically follow which makes his inherent plans part of the original level of insanity that made him want to bind, torture, and kill despite the fact that he was a church organizer or something of that level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

murdog wrote:
Every kid is as important as the next, and kids are very important.

No.

Unless you cry yourself to sleep every day, you are lying.

So one must cry themselves to sleep everyday because a child has died? Every child is indeed important which is why people tend to make great efforts to support those who are in need, the fact that we are disconnected from most of them prevents the creation of an emotional bond that would cause one to cry when a child half way across the globe dies. Children are very important, but just because they are important doesn't mean that they are important to us personally.

halonachos wrote:
While there may be reason to doubt my ability to reason, there is absolutely no need to call out my personal goals and aspirations in that manner. I am speaking from the knowledge presented by you in this very thread of which is all I need. You gave me his 'explicitly stated goal' and that goal is all I need in order to discern whether or not he was able to achieve it. I have repeatedly stated that he has not, it is remotely similar to how the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, while devastating, was a failure.

I gave you nothing, as I said before you must read person X manifesto prior to speaking on it.

Honestly, I cannot engage you anymore without suffering a ban, good luck with medical school.

halonachos wrote:
So one must cry themselves to sleep everyday because a child has died? Every child is indeed important which is why people tend to make great efforts to support those who are in need, the fact that we are disconnected from most of them prevents the creation of an emotional bond that would cause one to cry when a child half way across the globe dies. Children are very important, but just because they are important doesn't mean that they are important to us personally.

A thing cannot be important without being important to a person.