School shooting in Finland

[born for banning]

Does a person who acts on their beliefs inherently have more meaning to their life than a person who does not do so?

The question is apt, but for what circumstance? Does meaning exist only in the individual? If not, wouldn't accomplishing something be more meaningful? And if meaning exists only in the individual, what's to say that masturbating all day while watching TV isn't the highest state of humankind?

It has no beauty to it, that way, the life thing.

[buckets_of_rain]

Yeah, what is the meaning of living a normal life and doing nothing?  Everyone does that.  ANYTHING has more meaning than that.

[AttheGates1996]

Yeah, what is the meaning of living a normal life and doing nothing?  Everyone does that.  ANYTHING has more meaning than that.

You don't have to kill other people and yourself to be meaningful. Life isn't meant to be meaningful, there is no actual purpose behind life (unless you have that of a religious belief). Therefore, anything you do is going to be meaningless. You might as well live your life happily and not kill others and then yourself like a coward wishing you were making a difference in a world that has an inevitable end.

Welcome to the ultimate reality.

[Svmmoned]

Interesting fact: They have in Finland very liberal law in case of gun possession, but there wasn't many gun related crimes, while in some other countries it would result in war zone (OMG! it seems that we're all not the same or equall!). It's proof that nationalism and isolation (of course in comparison to all those countries "open" for all shit) really works there. The result is peaceful and quite healthy nation (again in comparison to others).

Enter globalization, modern values, internet, corruption, "angry" music etc.
Isn't that a irony that he post all that stuff on the internet?
I doubt that Finish society really gave him so many reasons to "hate". When he say: I hate, I think: victim of those who he assuming to hate.
It was rather fault of being "global teen", which gave him information about corruption of the rest of the world which he may never experienced within his own nation or other social group he lived on. Does he should care about rest of the world (of course if "world" doesn't invade his society/ nation)?

His reasons wasn't sufficient but at least he wasn't passive.
He wasn't all that conscious and accuracy of his beliefs was rather coincidental.
He wasn't any "natural selector" or response to society's illnes, he was product of that illnes. On opposite pole of the same ball of shit.
He gave bad picture of people who are against society's values, and also that who has interest in history or philosophy if this is only action that such people can undertake. And society is too dumb to catch the message that he (could, but not necessarily) had for them...

I'm not shocked or surprised by his actions, and I don't have compassion for his victims or their families.

[AttheGates1996]

I don't have compassion for his victims or their families.

Would you not have compassion for your family and friends if you were the killed victim of an extremist whose belief completely contradicted itself.

If you were killed in an accident like this would you consider (assuming you could still contain a conscience) your life a worthy sacrifice? Would you really make the statement (once again, hypothetically speaking IF you could) "My life was wasted for a good reason and I have no sympathy for my family and friends who are mourning for me at this very moment?"

[Svmmoned]

If I would wrote that I feel something for them that would be a lie. Because in so huge society or in this case on mankind scale they are only abstraction for me. You trapped yourself with your question, because as you can see even you need to drag that situation on more personal, if not egoistic field (me, my friends, family) to trully feel something. Of course I can imagine their suffering but only when I look on that from personal point of view (what if that going to happen to me, my family, friends). Other than that it's still abstraction.

And of course I wouldn't sacrifice myself or any people close to me to such stupid case. But where in my previous post did you read that I consider his action as something worthy? He didn't achieve nothing besides media attention.

[born for banning]

This dude would not have killed anyone who was not a total fucking tool.

Most school shooters pick their victims. Klebold and Harris did, and I'm sure Auvinen would have.

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

If I would wrote that I feel something for them that would be a lie. Because in so huge society or in this case on mankind scale they are only abstraction for me. You trapped yourself with your question, because as you can see even you need to drag that situation on more personal, if not egoistic field (me, my friends, family) to trully feel something. Of course I can imagine their suffering but only when I look on that from personal point of view (what if that going to happen to me, my family, friends). Other than that it's still abstraction.

Of all western nations the USA is the only one with a gun problem, even so in many of the other western nations they are liberal on gun control. Finland is not the only place in this regard.

[born for banning]

Of all western nations the USA is the only one with a gun problem, even so in many of the other western nations they are liberal on gun control. Finland is not the only place in this regard.

USA is also the most multicultural, and the most driven by economy (highest worker productivity). Before we blame guns, which are a nice thing to have when idiots try to take your stuff and hurt your family, let's consider the other possibilities. I'd rather not get political here, but to say that the USA's problem is guns is to completely ignore the reality of a dying empire, which is that it has more problems than healths.

[Mithrandir]

USA is also the most multicultural, and the most driven by economy (highest worker productivity). Before we blame guns, which are a nice thing to have when idiots try to take your stuff and hurt your family, let's consider the other possibilities. I'd rather not get political here, but to say that the USA's problem is guns is to completely ignore the reality of a dying empire, which is that it has more problems than healths.

When was the USA ever an empire? It simply rose to prominence by the sheer luck of fools who thought they can have a "better life" by migrating rather than trying to fix the problems in their own countries, who then created more meaningless/plastic shit, and this lasted less than 150 years before the country hit the shitter.

Summoned: if you read this: http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/American.html

you'll see that there's no such thing as an "isolated" developed country. Multiculturalism is everywhere, and possibly those who complain the most about it are the ones who can least live without it.

[Dunkelheit]

you'll see that there's no such thing as an "isolated" developed country. Multiculturalism is everywhere, and possibly those who complain the most about it are the ones who can least live without it.

There's a difference between a nation having relations with its neighbors (whether they be diplomatic, economic, or what have you) and forcing multiple cultures to coexist within the same state. The world should be multicultural, single nations shouldn't.

[born for banning]

you'll see that there's no such thing as an "isolated" developed country. Multiculturalism is everywhere, and possibly those who complain the most about it are the ones who can least live without it.

Logical fallacy: nations that developed in isolation are now multicultural, which is what we're arguing against.

[Svmmoned]

Of all western nations the USA is the only one with a gun problem, even so in many of the other western nations they are liberal on gun control. Finland is not the only place in this regard.

Yeah, but I was refering rather to those countries, where gun possession is still a rarity. Because of many law difficulties to get concession, lack of (legal) distribution or simple because of mentality of citizens. And I think that in some places it simply won't work. Same with drugs - I believe that in some countries there is no need to be so restrictive while in others being restrictive is a must to avoid anarchy.

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

Yeah, but I was refering rather to those countries, where gun possession is still a rarity. Because of many law difficulties to get concession, lack of (legal) distribution or simple because of mentality of citizens. And I think that in some places it simply won't work. Same with drugs - I believe that in some countries there is no need to be so restrictive while in others being restrictive is a must to avoid anarchy.

I happen to live in a country where you would probably go your entire life without ever seeing a real gun, let alone hold, shoot or own any. Probably why me and the people I know cannot comprehend  American culture.

[Svmmoned]

Summoned: if you read this: http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/American.html

you'll see that there's no such thing as an "isolated" developed country. Multiculturalism is everywhere, and possibly those who complain the most about it are the ones who can least live without it.

I was familiar with some variation of this text. Every country is now connected with others on some plain. But I wrote isolated in comparison to some countries open to all shit (France for example). Not isolated totally or physically. Is there was ANY social group in history that was self-sufficient and not obtain some goods through trade with others? But is it enough to call such group multicultural?