Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's WRONG with these people?!?!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AmyG
    replied
    Originally posted by Towelmaster
    This all does not change my impression though : I think these people would normally be too struck down to think about such relatively trivial matters as a tv-camera. They have just lost 5 girls.
    I don't think that it matters whether or not they were too upset, grief-stricken, etc., to notice that their religious beliefs had been compromised. The point is not whether or not they were actually upset; the point is that people shouldn't do something that they know (and I'm convinced that most of the press there, being local, did know) would compromise these peoples' religious beliefs.

    Would you sneak some pork or shellfish into a stew if you were having Orthodox Jews over to your house for dinner, if you thought they wouldn't be able to discern that it was in there?

    Leave a comment:


  • WorkerCaste
    replied
    Originally posted by Towelmaster
    No tv's, of course. Point taken. But perhaps journalists sometimes have the right to decide for themselves whether they will tape something or not?

    This all does not change my impression though : I think these people would normally be too struck down to think about such relatively trivial matters as a tv-camera. They have just lost 5 girls.
    You and me, it's a trivial matter. Saying it's trivial for them is marginalizing their beliefs. I don't understand it, but it is part of who they are. And, again, how does violating their beleifs benefit the public good?

    Leave a comment:


  • Towelmaster
    replied
    Originally posted by AmyG
    No, Towelmaster, they didn't complain about it. How would they even know they'd been on tv? They don't have tvs in their home. I just thought it was culturally insensitive. Journalists who travel the world are supposed to know such things, like knowing about not eating with your left hand in Muslim countries (at least I hope that's the correct hand -- if not, apologies in advance for the faux pas).
    No tv's, of course. Point taken. But perhaps journalists sometimes have the right to decide for themselves whether they will tape something or not?

    This all does not change my impression though : I think these people would normally be too struck down to think about such relatively trivial matters as a tv-camera. They have just lost 5 girls.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Yeah, we don't want to send throngs of enraged people into the streets burning US and Israeli flags chanting "DURKA DURKA RIGHT HAND!"

    It's funny how the USA is the only country where people aren't expected to follow supposed cultural standards. It's because we don't care, because not caring is normal.

    Maybe the journalists thought they were Quakers...

    Look at this: me defending journalists. Next, I will be sticking up for lawyers.

    Leave a comment:


  • AmyG
    replied
    Btw: Did they actually complain about it? Or is this one of those things that are brought up by other people? Just askin'.
    No, Towelmaster, they didn't complain about it. How would they even know they'd been on tv? They don't have tvs in their home. I just thought it was culturally insensitive. Journalists who travel the world are supposed to know such things, like knowing about not eating with your left hand in Muslim countries (at least I hope that's the correct hand -- if not, apologies in advance for the faux pas).
    Last edited by AmyG; 10-03-2006, 07:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WorkerCaste
    replied
    Originally posted by LessonInMachismo
    I wouldn't care. If top secret information is apparently fair game, then so are religious men in public view. Don't expect anybody to know the tenets of every single religion in the nation, much less the world. I, for one, had no clue about the photograph thing.
    Sure, you can't know every tenet of every religion, but in all likelihood most of the press responders were local newspeople (even national feeds generally pick up off local correspondants/reporters) who would certainly be aware of the the Amish beliefs. Also, I can't imagine that the press wouldn't try to get some on-camera images of shock and horror as they do with all the witnesses, neighbors, parents, students, etc. for all such events. The first time you try to get an Amish reaction on camera, you would become aware of their beliefs. Beyond that, the police and officials in that area are certainly aware, too. These weren't Amish people in the middle of LA -- they were Amish people on their own lands. You go into that area, and you should know. My parents went into the area as tourists years ago and they were informed. All that being said, I can't buy that's it's ignorance.

    Once you rule out ignorance, I think the press should care and respect the beliefs of those people, especially when violating them serves no public interest. Their images only satisfy a morbid curiousity. How does that balance against their rights to their beliefs?

    As for Towelmaster's comment about caring meaning there was something "seriously wrong with them" I would point out that people often cling harder to their beliefs when tragedy strikes. It's how most gain what comfort they can in an uncontrollable situation. It's not a matter of them not wanting their pictures taken because it never comes out good (with which I could also sympathize ), it's a matter of deeply held beliefs. I haven't heard that the Amish have made any complaints. They likely don't even know. Long lenses and grief-stricken subjects wouldn't make for a lot of awareness. Also, it's not like they'd see their images on TV or the web. I don't know how they feel about newspapers, but I bet the local papers didn't include those images if the Amish do subscribe.

    It would not cost us, the news consuming public, a single thing to respect their wishes.
    Last edited by WorkerCaste; 10-03-2006, 09:31 AM. Reason: Corrected a typo

    Leave a comment:


  • Harrdy
    replied
    "No officer, I had no clue that it was illegal..."
    (sorry about that *eg*)

    PeAcE

    Leave a comment:


  • Towelmaster
    replied
    Originally posted by LessonInMachismo
    I wouldn't care. If top secret information is apparently fair game, then so are religious men in public view. Don't expect anybody to know the tenets of every single religion in the nation, much less the world. I, for one, had no clue about the photograph thing.
    I agree. If the Amish would care about such a thing as cameras at a moment like this there would be something seriously wrong with them. Btw: Did they actually complain about it? Or is this one of those things that are brought up by other people? Just askin'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Originally posted by AmyG
    I have to add, in reading about this story online last night (I'm an hour east of the small town in Lancaster where this happened), I was more than a little disturbed by the images of the Amish men -- close up, with their faces visible -- that were being used on many major news outlets. Aren't the photojournalists aware that the Amish do not allow their pictures to be taken? Or do they simply not care? My husband's comment was, "Apparently, coverage of killing sprees trumps religious objection." Yeesh.
    I wouldn't care. If top secret information is apparently fair game, then so are religious men in public view. Don't expect anybody to know the tenets of every single religion in the nation, much less the world. I, for one, had no clue about the photograph thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vyse
    replied
    Amazing how stupid humans can be.

    I am supposed to visit that Amish community in my intercultural communications class, wonder if it will be cancelled now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shr'eshhhhhh
    replied
    Dunblane is just up the road from me. This isn't an wholly American phenomenon.

    I think that something happens in the minds of these people to sever the empathic relationship that most humans have (to varying degrees) with each other and particularly with the vulnerable.

    Caring for the weak isn't a biological impulse (unless it's extended to one's immediate progeny) it's a social one.

    Some cultures (like Ancient Sparta and Rome and Nazi Germany saw such 'meek' sentiment as vulgar). Nature favours the strong but modern western cultures, through it's Judaeo-Christian heritage has a code of care for the old, young and weak.

    Modern democracy has included minority interests into that code and we (on the surface at least) promote tolerance as the ideal.

    If someone is sufficiently isolated or feels disenfranchised from that social influence (or becomes under the sway of a stronger contrary mindset). It is sadly all too easy for such people to revert to the baser instincts that are buried in us all and attack the 'outsider' or the weak.

    The fact that the victims of this crime were both Amish and children would doubly enforce the 'appeal' of the deed to a distorted mind like this one and knowing that the crime would be severely punished would leave suicide as the 'prefered' option to many such a criminal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harrdy
    replied
    @enjo: I guess only one who has experienced how depression "works" understands the problems with it. In my case it was a "self-defence", a possibility to survive (and NOT go out and shoot people, eg.) in a hurting environment. But it differs, of course. The brain and the mind are an unity, you can have chemical inbalances and get psychological depression and the other way round, if you are depressed your chemicals get inbalanced.

    And regarding to the act of children killing children. I never wanted to excuse anyone, if that came up, sorry. In therapy we learn to see connections, why something happens. Only after one understands WHY something happens one can go on and make moral decisions. So I tried to understand why a child would do something and found some points in my life where I could have done something (if I had less empathy, more pressure and maybe not being able to "disconnect" from emotions altogether, via depression) like that. And yes, I think it is even easier in childhood, because you care less for others (empathy is something you learn) and for you (I remember thinking: Live has nothing more for me, I could die now, I don't care). You also don't have bad experiences to base your judgment on, when you where "bad/evil" once you know that you do not only hurt your environment BUT YOURSELF that way. It is really problematic if children are not protected enough, IMHO

    PeAcE

    Leave a comment:


  • enjo
    replied
    Harrdy -- very very interesting posts; thanks. Although I might not agree with or might not quite understand some of your viewpoints, I admire your ability to express yourself on a complex, difficult, highly personal subject like depression -- and you have my sincerest empathy. I've struggled with it for over 15 years (serious enough to have required early retirement), along with a few other weird and/or potentially complicating conditions.

    Looking at my life/parents/education/careers/social life/marriages/etc, and of course knowing my 'former-self' up to the breakdown point, there's so extremely little over which to be even minorly or temporarily depressed about -- never mind seriously, clinically depressed -- that even to me, it's almost laughable.
    Undoubtedly though, it's no better to be in your situation with maybe at least some situational or other causes, than it is to be in mine with nothing but the ole 'suddenly mysteriously screwed-up brain chemicals' diagnosis. Either way, the condition truly isn't a laughing matter.


    I too lost all but a couple of my former socalled friends.
    Some of that may have had to do with my 'relative non-functionality', e.g. : memory & concentration are very iffy; can't tolerate anything even vaguely approaching crowds or noise; for some odd reason the mere thought of flying makes me insane (thus no more leisure travel except by car so no more traveling pals -- seems very few people have either patience or time for that any more); & so on and so forth. Maybe being friends with me just required too much, er, 'maintenance'... lol.

    And yes some of it may have something to do with money. Thankfully we've been ok financially but did lose quite a few years of my salary so not quite as well off in the area of 'frivolity-disposable' income as we might otherwise have been.

    But I suspect a big part of it is a rather medieval attitude many people may have without realizing it : depression is something they might somehow 'catch' if they stick around.
    Well, either it's that or it's some sort of But-For-The-Grace-Of-God feeling which may be part fear but also part pity -- and maybe it's kinda tough to be friends with someone whom one pities.



    Perhaps more along the general lines of this thread ---


    Hideous though it may sound.. yes, there have indeed been times when I thought I could almost understand how/why someone might go get a gun & go shoot people.
    It actually happened once where I worked (not my office nor anywhere near where I was at the time) -- coworker opened fire on coworkers & killed self shortly afterward. And sheesh I found myself halfway understanding it.

    I'd already had one breakdown myself and was fairly ill.. hm, not that that's any real defense for claiming to understand monstrous occurrences, I guess.. but then too that was an adult and so was I, and we worked in similar conditions/same organization.

    To me what seems totally incomprehensible is kids shooting kids. Of course my childhood occurred pretty long ago -- almost seems like some magical, fairytale era, rather different from what I imagine childhood in the last couple of decades up to now might be like (also quite different from what I heard & from what I went through vicariously with our various nieces/nephews and their parents).

    Can't say kids 'never ever' mass-murdered other kids back in the day, but if so I'd be kinda surprised, especially if it happened at school. Maybe in gang-related circumstances? I dunno. Think the first instance I ever heard of -- iirc, I was in graduate school at the time -- was the belltower shooter.. university campus, maybe somewhere in Texas? sheesh this iffy memory. Not sure the shooter was even a student though.


    As for identifying signs&portents regarding who'd be most likely to do bad things..
    hmmmm.. double-hmmmm.
    Mayyyybe if there were some absolutely infallible way to tell.. but then what could or should we 'do' with such info? To get just the barest inkling of the possible pitfalls, one has only to see some fairly ordinary innocent lil silver-haired lady being treated as a potential terrorist at the airport..

    [btw, this ain't the first time around for them pore lil ole ladies at airports :
    Back in the hijacking days, one of my utterly-elegant teensytiny elderly aunties was 'detained' -- i.e., literally whisked away by four big guys right before our horrified eyes -- due to a highly suspicious, potentially deadly item in her posh little leather carryon traincase : a bottle of fairly expensive perfume which just about anyone at all could've identified by the merest whiff and which happened to have a small thin metal-filigree decoration.]
    Last edited by enjo; 10-03-2006, 07:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AmyG
    replied
    As for the "why," see the Boomtown Rats song, "I Don't Like Mondays". The message of which is, there is no real reason. It's whatever the gunman says it is, which is never enough. It's just....just awful.

    I have to add, in reading about this story online last night (I'm an hour east of the small town in Lancaster where this happened), I was more than a little disturbed by the images of the Amish men -- close up, with their faces visible -- that were being used on many major news outlets. Aren't the photojournalists aware that the Amish do not allow their pictures to be taken? Or do they simply not care? My husband's comment was, "Apparently, coverage of killing sprees trumps religious objection." Yeesh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harrdy
    replied
    I know that in our country there are child getting beaten, I see childs living on the street, begging and being ignored. Yes, you cannot prevent 100% of all possible problems, life is just to random to allow that... BUT I see the main part of the problem in the tendency of looking "the other way". I heard that one cannot care for more than 100 persons, any more and you stop caring. In a city there are just to many, you are not able to care, so there needs to be a system, an agency, who cares. We have child welfare, but it is seriously underpaid, and they have not enough people to look into all cases of child abuse. That buggers me...

    PeAcE

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X