PA couple shot over long-going dispute with neighbor

[ohtlmtlm]

I apologize for offering information you didn't have. I will allow you to remain ignorant from now on. It's weird when people get offended by this kind of thing though... might want to look into that.

ever consider that the word you use for something is part of a regional or technical dialect not shared with other people before you trip over yourself to try and correct others? You knew what I meant yet felt it necessary to ignore the entire point of the thread and correct what you perceive to be a technical description error.

[Adamas102]

That's not what I said. I said he was a person who clearly had anger issues and a propensity for violence, as we can determine by how his anger and lack of control led to him murdering two people. Thus, he was essentially a powder keg, primed to go off. This argument sparked enough to light the fuse, but if it hadn't been this argument, it was a matter of time and convenience before another circumstance set him off this way.

No suggestion that he "wanted to kill them all along", and no suggestion that an event didn't trigger his impulses.

What led to him killing them was that powder keg. Not the little spark of the argument that lit it. Anyone who wasn't such a powder keg would get triggered in such a way.

So you agree that an event triggered his impulses while at the same time saying that the argument was not a trigger? His impulse was to kill and the event was the argument. That's all I've been saying this whole time!

You're also arguing a propensity for violence based on a single incident. Might sound like a fair assessment to make, but you have NO IDEA whether or not the man would have murdered anyone if not for the argument in question. All we have as evidence is a single incident that went from an argument to murder.

You call him a powder keg because he popped off over an argument (which reasonable people wouldn't do), but would you not use the same term to label the father who murders a drunk driver that killed a family member (since we'd like to think that a reasonable person wouldn't murder someone for revenge either)? Or is your determination based on an arbitrary level of what constitutes an extreme overreaction?

If you're arguing that a crime was justified by circumstances, you're arguing that it was not really a crime. Or at least, that the crime was the natural consequence of the circumstances, and that anyone would react that way in those circumstances.

I'm not arguing that the crime was justified. At all. Nor am I arguing that the crime was a natural consequence of the circumstances. Simply saying that specific events are connected does not mean that those circumstances MUST lead to that outcome every time. The killer is still fully responsible even if you can pin point a particular set of events that led them to kill. Events might have gotten them to a certain point, but the ultimate decision to act is still theirs. No justification, no predetermination.

The events may be "connected", but so is a woman being raped and the actions she took that made her rapist take notice of and target her. We wouldn't blame her for those actions. And it's the same here; blaming the victim for their killer's actions is horrendous and indefensible.

Good thing no one is blaming the victims.

I don't want to speak for the man but I gathered Endus' point to be more that this guy was always going to do something like this. All that he needed was an inciting event...it didn't have to be this one. It could have been getting fired from his job, getting rejected by a woman, getting cut off in traffic, etc. This guy was a timebomb.

It's very different from the situation with the father and his sons because that's a very specific trigger and that's what makes it a bad comparison. I think most of us can understand why a father might be driven to murder a man that just killed both of his sons. I think that's part of the reason he was acquitted. I doubt the jury was convinced by the defense's story that there was another shooter responsible for the killing...but it gave them just enough of a push towards reasonable doubt.

That's pure speculation, though. Yeah, maybe the guy would have eventually killed them or someone else no matter what. Or, maybe if not for those particular incidents on that particular day he could have gone for the rest of his life without brutally murdering anyone. He had already made it through 47 years of life without murdering someone. You can't base your outlook on what could have happened but ultimately didn't happen. All we have are the events themselves to judge by.

Neither situation is different at its core. It just FEELS different because one is more relatable than the other. However, it doesn't matter that we find it easier to place ourselves in the shoes of the father. Plenty of people could agree that murder for revenge is just as amoral and unreasonable as murder over an argument. The drunk driver isn't responsible for being murdered in revenge, just as the asshole couple isn't responsible for being murdered over an argument. However, both murders are tied to inciting events and the people involved. That's the comparison.

[cubby]

Other than the actual events of the actual crime, you mean.

Little things like that, y'know.

Please be better than this - don't brush aside my arguments with sophomoric responses that dismiss the point. Either answer them, or ignore them, but please - don't be juvenile. Others in this thread have that covered.

The actual events in the case are laid out in those three statements. And none of it refuttable - or, rather, you haven't disputed those facts. Shout and link if you have.

That's not "tautological", that's just deduction from the facts.

Yes, an accurate and correct deduction from the facts will appropriately lead you to presume that the outcome that occurred was likely to occur in that situation, because that's how cause and effect works. That's not a "tautology", at all.

It's ENTIRELY tautological. It's literally a circular argument - tautology - because you're saying he was a powder keg because he blew, and he blew because he was a powder keg. CIRCULAR LOGIC is what you are using.

You've literally never explained why, other than your own emotional irrationality about it.

I have literally explained dozens of times, to you, why they are different. Literally the law labels and handles them differently, as well as social scientists. It's you who's emotions are clouding their judgment.

To iterate - a rapist will always rape. Violence will not always happen. That is social science dogma - and you have yet to post anything that proves otherwise.

The concept of victim blaming did not emerge solely in reference to rape victims and has never been exclusively restricted to rape victims. You're flatly wrong about this, and I've already provided plenty of sources demonstrating that, whereas you have provided precisely jack squat to justify your attempt to redefine the term.

And I never said it did. NEVER. Please read the things you respond to rather than inferring your own internal dialogue. And if you disagree, please link the post where I said VB came SOLELY in reference to rape.

[Very Tired]

Seems to me like this entire thing is just indicative towards the particular culture we mostly see in America of "be nice to others or risk getting shot by our many guns". Course, if stereotypes of general decency are to be believed, we are working ourselves in the opposite direction compared to other countries without a similar problem.

You guys can play the whole "who's to blame" game... for 20 pages... But it really doesn't matter since literally everyone involved in these situations usually ends up dead. Tackling the root culture cause for this issue would be a better use of time.

[Endus]

You call him a powder keg because he popped off over an argument (which reasonable people wouldn't do), but would you not use the same term to label the father who murders a drunk driver that killed a family member (since we'd like to think that a reasonable person wouldn't murder someone for revenge either)? Or is your determination based on an arbitrary level of what constitutes an extreme overreaction?

Why do you assume I wouldn't use the same term for the father who murders a drunk driver? At best, we're talking about the length of the fuse in question.

Please be better than this - don't brush aside my arguments with sophomoric responses that dismiss the point. Either answer them, or ignore them, but please - don't be juvenile. Others in this thread have that covered.

You claimed there was no evidence, and there clearly is. It was a statement that only deserved a snarky response. It's seriously not that different from arguments we've both seen from Trump supporters claiming that, say, there's "no evidence a certain guy is racist", despite all the tweets and such attacking racial justice movements and his hanging out with Proud Boys and so on.

The actual events in the case are laid out in those three statements. And none of it refuttable - or, rather, you haven't disputed those facts. Shout and link if you have.

I dispute your claim that those three statements lay out everything that needs to be understood, in the first place. It's like when we see someone post data on black crime versus white crime to justify their support of stronger policing of black Americans; they have limited the data to support their conclusion, rather than considering everything.

Using your three statements as listed here; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53004852

#1 and #2 I agree with.
#3 I do not agree with. We don't know what else may have set the guy off, or when, or why. It's making a presumption that the argument itself is what caused the shooting, not the shooter's own predilections. And I fundamentally and deeply dispute that this is the case. The point you're making here is a form of victim-blaming. That's why we've been arguing against it.

It's only true in the same sense that a particular girl might not have been raped if she hadn't dressed slutty in front of the wrong guy. You don't like this comparison because it demonstrates how wrong you are about this, not because of any meaningful difference in character between the two situations.

It's ENTIRELY tautological. It's literally a circular argument - tautology - because you're saying he was a powder keg because he blew, and he blew because he was a powder keg. CIRCULAR LOGIC is what you are using.

This is part of why I'm getting snarky with you. This isn't circular logic. There's the set of facts of what happened. Those demonstrate that the shooter was pushed too far and "snapped" and shot two people. That, working backwards, is what indicates he was a powder keg waiting for a spark, which they provided. There is no circularity to that in any way whatsoever; it's just straight deduction from the facts.

It's like saying "he stabbed his wife because she cheated on him, and she cheated on him so he stabbed her" is a circular argument. It isn't. You're just re-stating the one deductive argument twice, with slightly different wording, and pretending that makes it circular. Which isn't how circular reasoning works.

I do not start with the presumption that he was a powder keg at any point. I started from the facts of the incident. That led me to believe he was a powder keg waiting to go off. End deduction. That conclusion was not ever presumed in that deduction. I have no idea where you pulled that from, but it's just not true.

I have literally explained dozens of times, to you, why they are different. Literally the law labels and handles them differently, as well as social scientists. It's you who's emotions are clouding their judgment.

"Rape and murder are different because rape is rape and murder is murder" is not an argument, particularly not when I was using one as an analogy.

This is where you engage in tautological non-arguments. Just because they're different does not mean they are not comparable in many respects. And victim-blaming is one respect where they absolutely are comparable. Pointing to the other differences doesn't change that, and isn't a meaningful counterpoint.

If I say to you that apples are like oranges in that both are sweet and fruit, and you come back with "but oranges have a rind, oranges aren't apples and you can't say they're the same", that's not a reasonable response.

To iterate - a rapist will always rape. Violence will not always happen. That is social science dogma - and you have yet to post anything that proves otherwise.

Here's an entire journal focused exclusively on the study of psychological propensities for violence and the like; https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/vi...d%20treatments.

You're just wrong about this. Psychological propensity towards violence is a massively studied field.

And I never said it did. NEVER. Please read the things you respond to rather than inferring your own internal dialogue. And if you disagree, please link the post where I said VB came SOLELY in reference to rape.

Then why do you keep protesting that we're applying the term to people who are blaming these murder victims for their victimization?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And I never said it did. NEVER. Please read the things you respond to rather than inferring your own internal dialogue. And if you disagree, please link the post where I said VB came SOLELY in reference to rape.

You have said it.

Victim blaming is about rape and race (separate instances), for the most part, and is continually misuse and misunderstood when taken out of those contexts. Like we've done here.

[cubby]

I've responded point by point here. But we don't agree, and we aren't going to agree - not on this topic. It might be better for both of us to just let this go and move on. Repeating points over and over again and claiming "you don't understand" will just get tiresome and become unproductive.
If you need to respond to the below, go ahead, but I've made my points clear - just as you believe you have made yours clear. We won't get any where further here. Let's just agree to disagree.

You claimed there was no evidence, and there clearly is. It was a statement that only deserved a snarky response. It's seriously not that different from arguments we've both seen from Trump supporters claiming that, say, there's "no evidence a certain guy is racist", despite all the tweets and such attacking racial justice movements and his hanging out with Proud Boys and so on.

There is NO evidence of your claim. Zero. Your argument for his "anger issues" is tautological. He snapped. That's all we know. Assuming otherwise is wrong.

I dispute your claim that those three statements lay out everything that needs to be understood, in the first place. It's like when we see someone post data on black crime versus white crime to justify their support of stronger policing of black Americans; they have limited the data to support their conclusion, rather than considering everything.

Using your three statements as listed here; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53004852

#1 and #2 I agree with.
#3 I do not agree with. We don't know what else may have set the guy off, or when, or why. It's making a presumption that the argument itself is what caused the shooting, not the shooter's own predilections. And I fundamentally and deeply dispute that this is the case. The point you're making here is a form of victim-blaming. That's why we've been arguing against it.

The bolded statement here proves my point. You don't know. Period. So ASSUMING he would is factually and logically wrong. Period. Show me evidence he "would have anyways" and we can continue.

It's only true in the same sense that a particular girl might not have been raped if she hadn't dressed slutty in front of the wrong guy. You don't like this comparison because it demonstrates how wrong you are about this, not because of any meaningful difference in character between the two situations.

Again, not a rape situation. Please stop attributing it as the same. Your emotional knee jerk reaction to this needs to stop. This was not rape or any of the other sociological situations that Victim Blaming addresses.

This is part of why I'm getting snarky with you. This isn't circular logic. There's the set of facts of what happened. Those demonstrate that the shooter was pushed too far and "snapped" and shot two people. That, working backwards, is what indicates he was a powder keg waiting for a spark, which they provided. There is no circularity to that in any way whatsoever; it's just straight deduction from the facts.

Thank you for admitting you are being snarky - and please stop. I'm sick of getting shit on in this thread for calmly presenting my positions. And I expect better of you.
You just don't understand circular logic then. You are saying he would have because he did, and he did because he would have. The literal definition of tautological arguments.

It's like saying "he stabbed his wife because she cheated on him, and she cheated on him so because she knew he would stabbed her" is a circular argument. It isn't. You're just re-stating the one deductive argument twice, with slightly different wording, and pretending that makes it circular. Which isn't how circular reasoning works.

No, that is a terrible example of circular logic. I've added bolded words that would make that statement circular. Your version is just nonsensical - which is different than circular. You're still saying he would have because he did, and he did because he would have. The literal definition of tautological arguments.
If there was evidence that the shooter was just waiting to shoot someone, and the couple happened to be there, then you'd be right. But there isn't evidence of that. So your statement and conclusion are wrong.

I do not start with the presumption that he was a powder keg at any point. I started from the facts of the incident. That led me to believe he was a powder keg waiting to go off. End deduction. That conclusion was not ever presumed in that deduction. I have no idea where you pulled that from, but it's just not true.

You do. You presume he was a powder keg because he snapped. You literally assume he was always a powder keg from the very beginning. By your own words.

"Rape and murder are different because rape is rape and murder is murder" is not an argument, particularly not when I was using one as an analogy.

Rape and murder are different. By name, legal status, sociological studies - everything. Using it as an analogy is horrific because it causes the emotional knee jerk reaction you require to make your argument - which is both false and circular.

This is where you engage in tautological non-arguments. Just because they're different does not mean they are not comparable in many respects. And victim-blaming is one respect where they absolutely are comparable. Pointing to the other differences doesn't change that, and isn't a meaningful counterpoint.

No - it's becoming clear you don't know what a tautological argument is. You are now literally using it incorrectly.

If I say to you that apples are like oranges in that both are sweet and fruit, and you come back with "but oranges have a rind, oranges aren't apples and you can't say they're the same", that's not a reasonable response.

What? I have no idea what you're getting at here. I'm being perfectly reasonable in my responses.

Here's an entire journal focused exclusively on the study of psychological propensities for violence and the like; https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/vi...d%20treatments.

And what does it say? Does it say everyone who commits violence would have committed violence NO MATTER WHAT? If it doesn't, then it proves you're wrong.

You're just wrong about this. Psychological propensity towards violence is a massively studied field.

No, I'm not. Because it's becoming pretty clear that you don't even know what points I've made. Do you understand that the fact that you just used "propensity" means I'm right? Do you even remotely get that?
The shooter might or might not have had a PROPENSITY towards violence. But just because he committed violence, doesn't mean he would have. That's what those studies say. Of course those studies also say he MIGHT have - but again, that's the POINT. We don't know - and especially YOU don't know.
But you need it to be that way - because if it's not, your entire argument fails. And those studies say he might not have, so by your own evidence, you are wrong.

Then why do you keep protesting that we're applying the term to people who are blaming these murder victims for their victimization?

Because we're not blaming them for their murders. Which has been my point the entire time here. Recall my synthesized position:
1. We can all agree that the couple and the guy were both responsible for the argument - two to tango and all that.
2. And we seem to all agree that the shooter was absolutely not justified in shooting the couple - not the first time, not the second time (/shudder).
3. The issue at hand is whether the shooting would have happened without the argument. And the shooting would not have happened - not on that day - without the argument.
Nothing in the above contradicts my position above. And nothing you or anyone else has provided proves the above wrong, nor misleading.

- - - Updated - - -

And I never said it did. NEVER. Please read the things you respond to rather than inferring your own internal dialogue. And if you disagree, please link the post where I said VB came SOLELY in reference to rape.

You have said it.

Victim blaming is about rape and race (separate instances), for the most part, and is continually misuse and misunderstood when taken out of those contexts. Like we've done here.

Thank you for proving my point. I said it wasn't just about rape, right?

[Jonnusthegreat]

You went all the way around the question without actually answering it.

Would you tell her that she should have been nicer?

I didn't go around the question - I directly answered it. You can find the answer in the first 4 words of the response you quoted.

I wouldn't say she 'should' do anything, because it's not my business to impose my ideals onto anyone else. But she doesn't have to be nice to avoid crimes being committed against her. Being nice tends to lead to a more enjoyable life experience though. It is always worth a shot.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Thank you for proving my point. I said it wasn't just about rape, right?

Sure, you have also applied it to domestic abuse and crimes where authorities/others try to blame the person who was injured for the injury.

The latter of which you are doing here

Also, I noticed you still haven't answered my question from earlier

I'll repeat it for you:

A man and a woman get into an argument. The woman started the argument and is escalating it at every turn. They are both as vile and disgusting as these people here are. As the argument escalates the man throws the woman on the ground and brutally rapes her.

Would you say "Well, if she had been nicer...she wouldn't have been raped"?

[Jonnusthegreat]

For me, this sums up the entire discussion - and so far no one has adequately resolved an answer:

1. We can all agree that the couple and the guy were both responsible for the argument - two to tango and all that.
2. And we seem to all agree that the shooter was absolutely not justified in shooting the couple - not the first time, not the second time (/shudder).
3. The issue at hand is whether the shooting would have happened without the argument. And the shooting would not have happened - not on that day - without the argument.

No one has disagreed with the above, merely argument about ancillary issues. After this particularly long roller coaster ride, I still haven't heard anyone disagree with the above.

Am I going crazy? I thought I read you post this exact thing like, 2 days ago... Or are you just stating it again for... certain individuals?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I didn't go around the question - I directly answered it. You can find the answer in the first 4 words of the response you quoted.

No you did not

I asked if you would say to her "If you had been nicer...you would not have been raped"

Your answer walked around that question

[Jonnusthegreat]

No you did not

I asked if you would say to her "If you had been nicer...you would not have been raped"

Your answer walked around that question

That was not your question. Your question was:

Would you say "Well, if she had been nicer...she wouldn't have been raped"?

This is not the first time you failed to comprehend something or misinterpreted what others have written. Please try to thoughtfully respond so we don't waste this valuable forum space.
[Infraction]

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That was not your question. Your question was:


This is not the first time you failed to comprehend something or misinterpreted what others have written. Please try to thoughtfully respond so we don't waste this valuable forum space.

I didn't misunderstand your answer. You misunderstood the question.

Would you have said those words?

[Jonnusthegreat]

I didn't misunderstand your answer. You misunderstood the question.

Discussing this further with you is a complete waste of my time. You cannot articulate what you want to ask, then when others answer your questions, you claim that the question you wrongfully worded was misinterpreted.

Would you have said those words?

This question (which you have now asked twice) was answered the first time you asked it, in a post you have already quoted, but apparently not read. Here it is again:

I wouldn't say she 'should' do anything, because it's not my business to impose my ideals onto anyone else. But she doesn't have to be nice to avoid crimes being committed against her. Being nice tends to lead to a more enjoyable life experience though. It is always worth a shot.

This is the last post I will make in this thread. In the future, when discussing things online, please make sure to articulate your thoughts correctly - it is text - you can take your time. Also, when 'going on the attack' against other forum posters, make sure you are correct, or it makes you look silly and unable to contribute to an intellectual discussion. I honestly don't know how I can link you direct evidence of what you said and you can still deny what you said. But it's simply not getting through.

[ohtlmtlm]

Sure. But there’s no regional dialect that calls a magazine a clip. Only misinformed people who have never handled firearms. Again, I apologize for offering information you didn’t have to you. Maybe next time you just accept the information and move forward with more knowledge instead of freaking out and pretending I called you horrible names. I wasn’t trying to be malicious, just offering knowledge you lacked. Personally, I love learning new shit. Apparently you abhor the very idea of it.

You've never heard of a clip or magazine used interchangeably ever before? but sure, next time im drinking with the gun boi's i'll be sure to randomly insert this useless distinction to an argument that no one is having so they know I'm an expert too.

[cubby]

Am I going crazy? I thought I read you post this exact thing like, 2 days ago... Or are you just stating it again for... certain individuals?

I'm restating if for certain individuals. The issue got complicated and my point never felt clear until I got to the above that you quoted. And I wanted to be clear to a few people whom I had been going back and forth with in conversation.

Although...that doesn't mean you're not going crazy.
(kidding...kidding of course, going for the jokes here - hope that was ok)

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This question (which you have now asked twice) was answered the first time you asked it, in a post you have already quoted, but apparently not read. Here it is again:

You answered, and I may not have the exact wording you used but, "She probably wouldn't have".

But that wasn't the question

The question was whether or not you would use the words "If she had been nicer...she would not have been raped"

This is a yes or no question.

- - - Updated - - -

You've never heard of a clip or magazine used interchangeably ever before? but sure, next time im drinking with the gun boi's i'll be sure to randomly insert this useless distinction to an argument that no one is having so they know I'm an expert too.

You better be careful.

Soon he's gonna start saying that you are far too invested in a forum argument. He'll start sending you private messages about how you are too invested in a forum argument. He's going to tell you that you need to work on your anger. He's just trying to educate and who are you to try and interfere with his self-appointed mission?

I know because he did all these things to me when I also objected to his "education".

Imagine that lack of self-awareness. Sending unsolicited private messages just to tell the other person that they are the one that needs to take a break from the internet.

No, it's far better to just let the Wise Sensei spread his wisdom to us little people.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm restating if for certain individuals. The issue got complicated and my point never felt clear until I got to the above that you quoted. And I wanted to be clear to a few people whom I had been going back and forth with in conversation.

If you want to be clear....answer the question that I have to keep on repeating.
[Infraction]

[Cruor]

There is no civil with stupid fucks like you.

I don't even like cubby, but why does this guy get a free pass, but if I said the EXACT same thing I'd get an infraction? This forum really is amazing.

Anyway, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. On further reading, they have had disputes for a while. The couple was shoveling snow onto his driveway on purpose. You can hear the woman call him a scumbag because he doesn't hang out with them. So what if the guy keeps to himself? Clearly this insulted them. They kept shit talking as he pointed the gun AND fired. two shitty people out of the world. You never who you are dealing with, don't start problems unless you want problems. This doesn't concern me in the least, because this guy wouldn't have shot me were I his neighbor, because I don't act like that.

[cubby]

If you want to be clear....answer the question that I have to keep on repeating.

I thought I answered the last question I saw you asked of me specifically - sorry if I missed it. Could you please repeat it, and I will.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I thought I answered the last question I saw you asked of me specifically - sorry if I missed it. Could you please repeat it, and I will.

A man and a woman get into an argument. The woman started the argument and is escalating it at every turn. They are both as vile and disgusting as these people here are. As the argument escalates the man throws the woman on the ground and brutally rapes her.

Would you say "Well, if she had been nicer...she wouldn't have been raped"?