Aurora shootings result of ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs

[En_Route]

More children starved to death in Africa today than died in the cinema, but no - one is blinking an eyelid.

I think it's a bit much to assume that.  People can be concerned about more than one thing at a time, and starvation all over the world is an old and ongoing problem -- whatever we might be doing to try to help end it, there isn't much new that can be said about it.  The shooting in Aurora tho is brand new and naturally going to get a flurry of comments.

I can well understand the respective news values at play here.
The point I am making is that people have been moved and affected, often viscerally so, by  the Aurora shootings.
But as those same people would have been aware (at some level) a far greater number of children were dying in a far-off continent but their emotions would not have been engaged to anything like the same degree, if at all. there's nothing startling about this or novel in my observations. As I've said, it is the psychology involved which to me at least is intriguing.

[Sandra Craft]

But as those same people would have been aware (at some level) a far greater number of children were dying in a far-off continent but their emotions would not have been engaged to anything like the same degree, if at all. there's nothing startling about this or novel in my observations. As I've said, it is the psychology involved which to me at least is intriguing.

I really don't see what's intriguing about the difference in reaction.  People dying of starvation all over is old news -- it's bad, we all feel bad about it, and most people try to do something to help out at least occasionally, but we're used to this bad news.  Why is it intriguing that reaction to something everyone is used to should be more restrained that to the novelty?

[En_Route]

But as those same people would have been aware (at some level) a far greater number of children were dying in a far-off continent but their emotions would not have been engaged to anything like the same degree, if at all. there's nothing startling about this or novel in my observations. As I've said, it is the psychology involved which to me at least is intriguing.

I really don't see what's intriguing about the difference in reaction.  People dying of starvation all over is old news -- it's bad, we all feel bad about it, and most people try to do something to help out at least occasionally, but we're used to this bad news.  Why is it intriguing that reaction to something everyone is used to should be more restrained that to the novelty?

Intriguing that empathy depends in part on novelty value. Might make you wonder what kind of guide it is in terms of human conduct.

[Sandra Craft]

Intriguing that empathy depends in part on novelty value. Might make you wonder what kind of guide it is in terms of human conduct.

Oh, I disagree entirely with your assessment.  I think you're way off base in fact and judging things very shallowly.  It isn't empathy that depends on novelty, it's our reaction.

[Sweetdeath]

ER, I think people tend to be more concerned with what directly affects them as a person. My perspective of what i find important enough to empathize over is vastly different than yours.
There isn't anything wrong with being sad over the theater massacre, especially in Ali's case, where she knew the victims involved. So let's stop playing the 'my story is sadder than yours' game. 

[En_Route]

ER, I think people tend to be more concerned with what directly affects them as a person. My perspective of what i find important enough to empathize over is vastly different than yours.
There isn't anything wrong with being sad over the theater massacre, especially in Ali's case, where she knew the victims involved. So let's stop playing the 'my story is sadder than yours' game. 

You're rebutting a point I never made.

[En_Route]

Intriguing that empathy depends in part on novelty value. Might make you wonder what kind of guide it is in terms of human conduct.

Oh, I disagree entirely with your assessment.  I think you're way off base in fact and judging things very shallowly.  It isn't empathy that depends on novelty, it's our reaction.

Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer,  our empathetic reactions.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer,  our empathetic reactions.

Another factor is that we only have so much "empathy fuel" in our tanks. It's an emotional reaction, so it depends on brain chemicals. You can run out after awhile, or become numb to some particular situation when over-exposure occurs. I've never lived amongst the starving in the deserts of Darfur, but I've heard about it for so long that it becomes sort of "the way it is."  I have been in a theater in America watching a movie with my family, so I can more readily summon the fuel for an emotional reaction to what occurred in Aurora, CO.  But that tank will also eventually run dry as over-exposure occurs, and as the next crisis comes along. I will barely remember this in a year, as I will have had to empty my empathy tank 50 times in the interim.

[Sandra Craft]

Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer,  our empathetic reactions.

I'm far from certain that what anyone feels about situation A vs. situation B can be properly determined by their reaction to either singlely.  There are other factors involved in a reaction to any situation, and I don't think anyone's degree of empathy can be assessed so glibly.

Another factor is that we only have so much "empathy fuel" in our tanks. It's an emotional reaction, so it depends on brain chemicals. You can run out after awhile, or become numb to some particular situation when over-exposure occurs.

Factors like that.  I've been hearing about the starving all over the world since I was 10 years old and being taught current events in school.  I remember being very shocked and worked up about it at the time, but that was nearly 50 years ago, the situation of the poor and starving has not substantially changed (altho my ability to donate time and/or money has) and my emotional reaction to it is naturally muted.  

I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a normal or reasonable thing for us to go about reacting in constant raw shock and outrage over every single thing that's terrible, regardless of whether it's just happened or has been ongoing since the days of primordial ooze.

[En_Route]

Whether and to what extent we are capable of empathy is one thing. What triggers off our empathetic reactions is another. Everyone seems agreed that it is not the scale of the suffering per se which elicits our empathy or ,if you prefer,  our empathetic reactions.

I'm far from certain that what anyone feels about situation A vs. situation B can be properly determined by their reaction to either singlely.  There are other factors involved in a reaction to any situation, and I don't think anyone's degree of empathy can be assessed so glibly.

Another factor is that we only have so much "empathy fuel" in our tanks. It's an emotional reaction, so it depends on brain chemicals. You can run out after awhile, or become numb to some particular situation when over-exposure occurs.

Factors like that.  I've been hearing about the starving all over the world since I was 10 years old and being taught current events in school.  I remember being very shocked and worked up about it at the time, but that was nearly 50 years ago, the situation of the poor and starving has not substantially changed (altho my ability to donate time and/or money has) and my emotional reaction to it is naturally muted. 

I have a hard time believing anyone considers it a normal or reasonable thing for us to go about reacting in constant raw shock and outrage over every single that's terrible, regardless of whether it's just happened or has been ongoing since the days of primordial ooze.

I don't think anything of the kind. Empathy is a severely rationed commodity.

[Happy_Is_Good]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html

So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting.  Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.

I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were legally liscenced to carry a gun...but they probably weren't carrying!  I can understand.

Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass - especially in the confines of a movie seat where you may want to lean over or shift body position regularly.  And every time you shift, you've got to reposition the freakin' gun and holster or it becomes very uncomfortable.  But...even if it were comfortable to wear a gun in such circumstances, would you still want to go to the movies and wear the gun?  I mean, if the odds that you should be attacked an maimed/killed at the movies were so high hat you needed a gun for self protection, then how could you possibly enjoy the movies anyways while you are always looking around and trying to figure out who is going to kill you? Why would you even want to go to the movies?

Seriously...What kind of world would we live in if we always had to carry a gun for self protection?  I bet you it would be a very sorry - very paranoid - type of world.  Fortunately, I do not live in that type of world, but I suspect Congressman Gohmert thinks he does!  And that's kind of ironic, for Congressman Gohmert and myself live in about the same neighborhood in Texas. 

The difference is not the neighborhood in which Congressman Gohmert and I live, it's how we view reality and deal with our fellow man.  While Congressman Gohmert lives in a paranoid world where he must always carry a gun, I live in a world where I would do so but once in a "blue moon" so-to-speak.  Unlike Congressman Gohmert, I have realized that if some "Plain ole' Citizen" needs to carry a gun at all times, then they are either hanging out with a bad crowd, or they are hurting a lot of people who feel the need to stop the hurt - or both.  Or...they are fearful for no damned reason.  In any of these cases, that paranoid "Plain 'ole Citizen" has become the problem and that gun they carry is nothing but the recipe for a needless disaster.

Or...so are my thoughts.

Peace.

[Sandra Craft]

I don't think anything of the kind. Empathy is a severely rationed commodity.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

[fester30]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html

So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting.  Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.

I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were legally liscenced to carry a gun...but they probably weren't carrying!  I can understand.

Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass - especially in the confines of a movie seat where you may want to lean over or shift body position regularly.  And every time you shift, you've got to reposition the freakin' gun and holster or it becomes very uncomfortable.  But...even if it were comfortable to wear a gun in such circumstances, would you still want to go to the movies and wear the gun?  I mean, if the odds that you should be attacked an maimed/killed at the movies were so high hat you needed a gun for self protection, then how could you possibly enjoy the movies anyways while you are always looking around and trying to figure out who is going to kill you? Why would you even want to go to the movies?

Seriously...What kind of world would we live in if we always had to carry a gun for self protection?  I bet you it would be a very sorry - very paranoid - type of world.  Fortunately, I do not live in that type of world, but I suspect Congressman Gohmert thinks he does!  And that's kind of ironic, for Congressman Gohmert and myself live in about the same neighborhood in Texas. 

The difference is not the neighborhood in which Congressman Gohmert and I live, it's how we view reality and deal with our fellow man.  While Congressman Gohmert lives in a paranoid world where he must always carry a gun, I live in a world where I would do so but once in a "blue moon" so-to-speak.  Unlike Congressman Gohmert, I have realized that if some "Plain ole' Citizen" needs to carry a gun at all times, then they are either hanging out with a bad crowd, or they are hurting a lot of people who feel the need to stop the hurt - or both.  Or...they are fearful for no damned reason.  In any of these cases, that paranoid "Plain 'ole Citizen" has become the problem and that gun they carry is nothing but the recipe for a needless disaster.

Or...so are my thoughts.

Peace.

Apparently that theater was a gun-free zone anyway.

[markmcdaniel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html

So Congressman Louis Gohmert (R), Texas, thinks that the decline of Christianity in America leads to such tragedies as the Aurora, Colorado shooting.  Then he wonders out loud where the gun owners were to shoot the guy.

I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were legally liscenced to carry a gun...but they probably weren't carrying!  I can understand.

Carrying a gun is a pain in the ass - especially in the confines of a movie seat where you may want to lean over or shift body position regularly.  And every time you shift, you've got to reposition the freakin' gun and holster or it becomes very uncomfortable.  But...even if it were comfortable to wear a gun in such circumstances, would you still want to go to the movies and wear the gun?  I mean, if the odds that you should be attacked an maimed/killed at the movies were so high hat you needed a gun for self protection, then how could you possibly enjoy the movies anyways while you are always looking around and trying to figure out who is going to kill you? Why would you even want to go to the movies?

Seriously...What kind of world would we live in if we always had to carry a gun for self protection?  I bet you it would be a very sorry - very paranoid - type of world.  Fortunately, I do not live in that type of world, but I suspect Congressman Gohmert thinks he does!  And that's kind of ironic, for Congressman Gohmert and myself live in about the same neighborhood in Texas. 

The difference is not the neighborhood in which Congressman Gohmert and I live, it's how we view reality and deal with our fellow man.  While Congressman Gohmert lives in a paranoid world where he must always carry a gun, I live in a world where I would do so but once in a "blue moon" so-to-speak.  Unlike Congressman Gohmert, I have realized that if some "Plain ole' Citizen" needs to carry a gun at all times, then they are either hanging out with a bad crowd, or they are hurting a lot of people who feel the need to stop the hurt - or both.  Or...they are fearful for no damned reason.  In any of these cases, that paranoid "Plain 'ole Citizen" has become the problem and that gun they carry is nothing but the recipe for a needless disaster.

Or...so are my thoughts.

Peace.

This is well said, but in addition I sincerely doubt that the theater would allow it's patrons to care concealed weapons anyway. The liability issues would be prohibitive.

[Stevil]

This is well said, but in addition I sincerely doubt that the theater would allow it's patrons to care concealed weapons anyway. The liability issues would be prohibitive.

I wouldn't want to imagine how a shoot out in a confined space with hundreds of people would turn out.

So what's the answer?
Restrict gun ownership? (I certainly think so)
Society trying to detect these lonely types and be more amicable with them (I think so).

I'm out of ideas about what else could be done.