Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'The scapegoating of Nancy Lanza' by Lionel Shriver, author of 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


When a mother encourages her sun to shoot guns and her son is a loner and fails to see that he might have some negative issues brewing, they're being neglectful. Period the end. Parents know when children are in a bad place and most decide to ignore it and hope for the best.

Morality starts in the home, and if not instilled properly we end up with murderers. If parents fail to see the warning signs they aren't looking hard enough.
Most Psychotics have mother or father issues, or issues of being abused.

So you can try and make Nancy Lanza the perfect mommy or you can recognize she had a hand in raising a mass murderer. It's better to find out what she did and how it led to this then just denying she did anything wrong.
We may learn something important from her mistakes.

No one says we need to make her the devil, but recognizing where the problem started is the first step to avoiding it from ever happening again.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I thoroughly believe that all of the Lanza family was to be assassinated. That's another thread. I think that family was knee deep in things that no one knows about. Nancy Lanza wanted to protect herself and, for good reason.

I think her son Adam was used then killed. I think the father and Ryan Lanza was to be assassinated on that same day but things did not go as planned. Ryan connected with social media right after the story broke and the father had an unexpected meeting to go to when it all went down.

I think Adam and his mother were executed.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCanuckian
 


We don't KNOW who Nancy Lanza was. We only know what we are told by the MSM. And the MSM are notorious liars.

She is not alive to talk, or defend herself. We have no idea at all what went on in her personal life on a day to day basis. We have no idea what kind of a mother she was. She's dead, so she can't tell us.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf

Parents deserve ALL the blame. You cant have the majority of influence over someone for the majority of their life and not end up with the majority of responibility for how they turned out.


Sounds like you're disappointed with your own parents to me. I feel sorry for that. I was lucky to have really caring ones. I can;t imagine how hard growing up would be with some of the psychos I've known as your permanent guardians and mentors.

If parents don't truly love their children then there is no valid bond between humans.
If anyone is going to do their utmost best for the sake of someone else it would be parents who fill that role most often. But not everyone is a good parent and some are just dumb....

Parents can guide but can never guarantee their kid couldn't snap under the right circumstances.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 


Wow, That is an amazingly shocking theory but quite plausible.
I didn't want to learn that much about his father actually, he just seemed like an emotional deadbeat.
His father's neglect may have had a role in this.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Great movie...

I got a bow for christmas btw...



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
If the official story is accurate, it's ridiculous to think some of the blame doesn't fall on Nancy Lanza. How can a responsible adult give access to all those weapons to a mentally unstable kid? She should have had them locked in a gun safe.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 


Wow, That is an amazingly shocking theory but quite plausible.
I didn't want to learn that much about his father actually, he just seemed like an emotional deadbeat.
His father's neglect may have had a role in this.


Nothing I've read links any of this to the father, but usually when there's a crime, whoever had the most to gain from it is to blame and he's saving $240,000/yr in alimony with Nancy Lanza dead.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 


Wow, That is an amazingly shocking theory but quite plausible.
I didn't want to learn that much about his father actually, he just seemed like an emotional deadbeat.
His father's neglect may have had a role in this.


yea neglect is key here. almost all of the anti social types that i have ever known coming up....neglect in its many forms was the common link. Rich, poor, whatever.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by broctune
If the official story is accurate, it's ridiculous to think some of the blame doesn't fall on Nancy Lanza. How can a responsible adult give access to all those weapons to a mentally unstable kid? She should have had them locked in a gun safe.

There are plausible explanations that could exonerate Ms. Lanza of this "blame"...
She could have had them in a gun safe...locked...and could have been both diligent & stealthy at keeping the key/s hidden...and her son (or others, for that matter) might still have found a way to get them.
Then again - as has been repeated numerous times in other threads...we still don't have "the Official Story".



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Nancy Lanza is as responsible for what Adam did as much as Klara Hitler is responsible for what Adolf did.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
reply to post by TheCanuckian
 


We don't KNOW who Nancy Lanza was. We only know what we are told by the MSM. And the MSM are notorious liars.

She is not alive to talk, or defend herself. We have no idea at all what went on in her personal life on a day to day basis. We have no idea what kind of a mother she was. She's dead, so she can't tell us.


Exactly. That is how scapegoating works. You choose a victim who has little or no (as in... she's dead) recourse to defend themselves. The media knows that the public will be crying for blood, and it fulfills an agenda to demonize gun owners, preppers, or anyone else The Establishment is nervous of.

She is no longer here to say if she was or wasn't a "gun nut", or whatever they are slapping on her. Plus, people get to vent all of their own baggage (that often enough has very little to do with the actual event) on the designated scapegoat. That is the purpose of scapegoating after all--to be a mindless, reactionary vent for individuals and society. In this case the mechanism was facilitated by a horrific event, but that is not that uncommon either. Shameful, shameful thing to heap it all on this dead woman. Absolute cowardice.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Thanks for sharing this article, every facet of information helps us to openly view to this tragedy and reach an understanding on the matter...



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Shriver has an agenda of her own to push, though, and she's doing it here. The insinuation that asking perfectly legitimate questions about how this happened and how it might have been avoided is simply an excuse so that 'one more time, we get to demonise the mother' exposes her own agenda, and is imho deeply disrespectful to those who lost loved ones in this terrible event.

Shriver reports that 'to date, authorities have not located any confirmed diagnosis for Adam Lanza' then spends two paragraphs arguing that Asperger's is not associated with violence to try to absolve Nancy Lanza of responsibility. But the characteristics of Asperger's are irrelevant if he didn't actually have it, and using them to try to deflect blame when the facts are so very far from known is disingenuous. As Shriver says, 'when the facts don't bolster your viewpoint, you can always make them up,' and she's as guilty of it as those she's castigating.

I also have a question about American law and this seems like a suitable place to ask it. I realise there are many different theories about what happened. But assuming that Adam Lanza did indeed simply take his mother's guns and commit the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, would Nancy Lanza have been likely to have faced charges around not keeping her guns securely enough had she not been killed?


Originally posted by WanDash
There are plausible explanations that could exonerate Ms. Lanza of this "blame"...
She could have had them in a gun safe...locked...and could have been both diligent & stealthy at keeping the key/s hidden...and her son (or others, for that matter) might still have found a way to get them.
Then again - as has been repeated numerous times in other threads...we still don't have "the Official Story".


But surely the mere fact that he got them, if that scenario is correct, shows that she wasn't 'diligent & stealthy' enough?

My first post, so my apologies if it's misplaced or I've offended anyone, that certainly wasn't my intention!



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brocade
Shriver has an agenda of her own to push...

I also have a question about American law and this seems like a suitable place to ask it. I realise there are many different theories about what happened. But assuming that Adam Lanza did indeed simply take his mother's guns and commit the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, would Nancy Lanza have been likely to have faced charges around not keeping her guns securely enough had she not been killed?
...
But surely the mere fact that he got them, if that scenario is correct, shows that she wasn't 'diligent & stealthy' enough?
...

While the remainder of your comment is poignant and well stated, I am not familiar enough with "Shriver" (or the article) to respond intelligently, either pro or con to your assessment.

As a general course of law (in the USofA), liability for negligent behavior goes as far as "commonly accepted practice among others in the same field".
In some cases, however, this generally accepted "rule" will often be seen flying through the window, should a judge/court be so "politically motivated".

So - when you say "she wasn't diligent & stealthy enough"...if that rule were applied evenly across all 'boards', there should be no culpability ascribed to "the thieves" when government &/or industrial databases are compromised by the likes of Anonymous...either.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by manmental
 


Then that persons mother was to poorly educated to figure out their child was molested. There are people who are specialized in dealing with the abused who can see the the signs of ptsd or emotional trauma. Yet because this mother was to ignorant to protect something she accepted resposiblity for its suddenly someone elses fault.

Somehow ignorance is now a perfect defence for people who would rather drink martinis than talk to their children about the dangers of predators.



Not my fault the baby crawled into the street.... i didnt know i was supposed to watch it.



you will be humble one day



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


Thank you for your reply
Your explanation of the law makes sense and is appreciated. I think there can be a difference between being legally and morally responsible - but we're a very long way from knowing what happened and the extent of her responsibility, if we ever do. Which - heh - I guess was Shriver's main point, even if I disagree with how she expressed it...

Thanks



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
You know... while I initially I liked your seemingly more measured approach here, I do think you use it to hide more of a slant on your perspective than you would have known. Which seems a bit disingenuous and ah... well indicative of an agenda of your own to push.


Originally posted by Brocade
Shriver has an agenda of her own to push, though, and she's doing it here. The insinuation that asking perfectly legitimate questions about how this happened and how it might have been avoided is simply an excuse so that 'one more time, we get to demonise the mother..;


She isn't arguing against asking "perfectly legitimate" questions. She is arguing against sloppy, sensationalized reporting that is doing nothing but pandering to a mob mentality, and slandering the dead who cannot speak. So yes she has an agenda, but it is still a valid criticism.


Originally posted by Brocade
...exposes her own agenda, and is imho deeply disrespectful to those who lost loved ones in this terrible event.


I absolutely fail to see how recognizing that this woman may not have done anything wrong, deserves to be mourned as a victim herself, and the media has been irresponsible in how this story has been reported is disrespectful to those who lost loved ones. Her entire point is that the media isn't asking questions. They are making assumptions and portraying it as fact. You are actually indicating here that since she is asking questions herself it is disrespectful. Bit of a double bind there.

As an aside, playing the 'disrespectful" card is a purely emotional argumentative tactic, and exposes your own "agenda".


Originally posted by Brocade
Shriver reports that 'to date, authorities have not located any confirmed diagnosis for Adam Lanza' then spends two paragraphs arguing that Asperger's is not associated with violence to try to absolve Nancy Lanza of responsibility. But the characteristics of Asperger's are irrelevant if he didn't actually have it, and using them to try to deflect blame when the facts are so very far from known is disingenuous.


I don't think that she was trying to deflect blame at all. She was trying to blame the media.

In her argument first she must prove that the media is skewing the facts, and then she gives an example. She uses all of the sensationalism regarding Adam and Aspergers as one of those examples. The media has no confirmation that Adam Lanza has Asperger's, and yet they report it as fact; and further there isn't even a link to Aspergers and this sort of premeditated violence, and yet the media makes that link as well. This indicates sloppy, sensationalist reporting. That was her point there. It was a simple tactic to discredit the media, which is valid, although Adam's Aspie status (or not as the case may be), has little enough to do with responsibility on Nancy Lanza's part, so perhaps the Aspie/reporting argument was a bit off-topic and haphazard. However, it is perhaps the best example of irresponsible reporting on the media's part, which may be why she used it.


Originally posted by Brocade
As Shriver says, 'when the facts don't bolster your viewpoint, you can always make them up,' and she's as guilty of it as those she's castigating.


While I think that this may be true, I'm seeing a bit of the pot and the kettle here.


Originally posted by Brocade
But surely the mere fact that he got them, if that scenario is correct, shows that she wasn't 'diligent & stealthy' enough?


And there is the the crux of it. That's a tough call. While Shriver states like it is a fact (which is indeed hypocritical considering her criticism), that there was no indication that Adam was unstable enough for that to be an issue (which, again, may or may not be true); Nancy should have had the weapons more secure IMHO. "Should" is one of the most dangerous words in the english language however. Fraught with peril. Also, I certainly don't think that she deserved to die for that mistake, or that such a mistake means that she does not deserved to be mourned like any other victim, and it seems to me that you are rather indicating that that is the case.


Originally posted by Brocade
My first post, so my apologies if it's misplaced or I've offended anyone, that certainly wasn't my intention!


Not offended, but I'll certainly tell you where I disagree on your interpretation of the article, and where I think you're skewing your own facts to suit an agenda. Although, whether or not that is intentional I cannot say.






top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join