It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Loughner's parents paid for shooting

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Stefan Molyneux is a weirdo and a profiteer. He's taken the basic theories of Murry Rothbard and a little anarchy and thinks he has found the true meaning. lf you dare to disagree with his theories you will see how strange he is!

Zindo


LOL

There is no real difference between what Molyneux teaches as a philosophy and what Rothbard teaches.

I'd wager the only reason you don't like Molyneux is because he is a powerful orator who is effective at spreading his views.

Rather than calling him and his beliefs weird, try picking a topic you disagree with him on and state why.

Of course, that would be ridiculous.

By the way, Rothbard was an anarchist, Stefan didn't need to add any anarchy on his own.


edit on 17-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 
This is true,but one must consider the outside influences upon the young and inexperienced.

The entire world is geared toward influencing young inexperienced people who really don't know any better to do all manner of silly things.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
This whole Loughner case is indeed terrible. The parents are not responsible directly. Everyone wishes things would of happened different. There is no point in pointing fingers now.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBigO
This whole Loughner case is indeed terrible. The parents are not responsible directly. Everyone wishes things would of happened different. There is no point in pointing fingers now.


Pointing fingers serves a purpose if someone is culpable in Loughners actions.

The parents had to know he was a raving lunatic, yet we don't see any evidence that they did anything to get him treatment.

Further, anecdotal reports from the parents neighbors state his dad was an angry man.

I still contend the parents didn't seek treatment for their son because they were afraid he might finger them for being abusive in therapy.

If you feed a dog gun powder and beat it savagely, then it goes out and kills some 5 year old, you are partially to blame for that death.

edit on 17-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Stefan Molyneux explores how media largely ignores...


As usual, Stef blames everything on bad parenting. He's leapfrogged beyond blaming Loughner to blaming his parents, suggesting they funded a mass murder. Never mind that the evidence in the public domain casts serious doubt on the Loughner lone nut theory. Just gloss over that, take tabloid headlines and call it research, hell le'ts just blame everyone for it. It's my fault, it's your fault, it's everyone's fault who didn't stop it.

[Edit - I also noticed later in the video he jumps from blaming parents to blaming society as a whole, for "dangling" rewards in front of Loughner (or Zamudio, perhaps).]
edit on 17-1-2011 by PlautusSatire because: added



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBigO
This whole Loughner case is indeed terrible. The parents are not responsible directly. Everyone wishes things would of happened different. There is no point in pointing fingers now.


Right, nobody wants to point the finger, EXCEPT directly at Loughner and nobody else. It is a testament to this propaganda campaign that barely a day later so many people took this Loughner lone nut theory and ran like the dickens with it. It's such an effective campaign that not only does everyone blame Loughner for the shooting, they refuse to allow anyone to even suggest that there are others bearing even PARTIAL responsibility. I'm very impressed by the people who set this up. Pushing Zamudio in everyone's face and calling him a hero is the most brilliant stroke.

Who will dare stand up and call this "hero" a mass murderer? By his own admission he was ready to drop the hammer on somebody the moment he came back from the Walgreens. By his own demeanor he's clearly very cold and emotionless but very proud of his role in this event. Consider the way he talks about how impressive the event was, he says several times it was "surreal" and makes many mentions of how staggering it was just how many people had been shot and how "fast" it had all taken place and other boastful claims that would be wholly inappropriate and bizarre if made by any bystander. More strange still, he refers to "Colonel Bill Badger" by the name "Andy" in his first story to the media. Zamudio's attitude and subsequent behaviour suggests quite strongly his direct involvement.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PlautusSatire
 



To me, it seems a tad ridiculous to place blame on a psychotic individual.

When someone is not in their right mind through no fault of their own, they are not culpable for their actions.

This is why we have insanity defenses.

His parents did have a responsibility to get their son treatment.

The kid is clearly a complete nut.

edit on 17-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The kid is clearly a complete nut.


Forgive me if I put exactly zero faith in your internet psychology diagnosis. I can only presume you base this diagnosis on the picture floating around and the apparent fact that he was bored and acted up in math class in junior college. If only such prognostication had a hope in hell of ever being right, the world could stand all the good done by wizards practicing that kind of magic.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Pointing fingers serves a purpose if someone is culpable in Loughners actions.


...agreed...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
The parents had to know he was a raving lunatic, yet we don't see any evidence that they did anything to get him treatment.


...no... you're presuming they had to know and that they failed to get him treatment... we could presume that they're idiots... or we could presume they're so mentally disturbed themselves that they wouldnt recognize their own son's mental illness...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Further, anecdotal reports from the parents neighbors state his dad was an angry man.


...an anti-social beer-drinker - yep... does that make him a self-medicating fruitcake?... maybe... since his wife bought the beer, maybe she was an abused enabler or maybe she's the reason both her hubby and son are nutz... we dont know what happened in that home...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
I still contend the parents didn't seek treatment for their son because they were afraid he might finger them for being abusive in therapy.


...had that thought myself... however, i dont know for sure that his parents never did seek treatment for him when he was a minor... they may have... after he became an adult legally, they couldnt force him into treatment... the law cant either unless he's deemed a danger to himself or others and even then its a temporary evaluation hold...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you feed a dog gun powder and beat it savagely, then it goes out and kills some 5 year old, you are partially to blame for that death.


...agreed and that was why charlie manson initially got the death penalty...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
To me, it seems a tad ridiculous to place blame on a psychotic individual.


...i dont agree...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
When someone is not in their right mind through no fault of their own, they are not culpable for their actions.


...yes, they are and there are plenty of examples... ted bundy, john wayne gacy, btk - its a big list of mentally ill who were held responsible for their actions, as they should have been...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
This is why we have insanity defenses.


...no... pleading insanity is simply the best attempt at avoiding the death penalty, whether the defendant is truly insane or not...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
His parents did have a responsibility to get their son treatment.


...when he was a minor - i can agree with that but their responsibility was a moral one, not a legal one that carried a penalty... however, like i already said, we dont know that they didnt seek treatment... we dont really know too much about that family...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
The kid is clearly a complete nut


...he could just be the very angry and confused son of an abusive anti-social beer-drinker...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join