[[

Very interesting read.

I wonder if Adam called them that because he felt their motives weren't compelling enough to him. Alot of reporting in the media seems to brush off Adam as just "obsessed with Columbine" but i don't think he was that interested in it particular and was more focused on mass murder as a whole.

UncontinuedProcess wrote:

I wonder if Adam called them that because he felt their motives weren't compelling enough to him. Alot of reporting in the media seems to brush off Adam as just "obsessed with Columbine" but i don't think he was that interested in it particular and was more focused on mass murder as a whole.

I wonder if he felt they were more morons for the absolute catastrophe their plans were on the day of the killings. Their bombs didn't go off, they had no alternative plan, they repeatedly passed up opportunities to kill as many people as they could, etc.

QuestionMark wrote:

UncontinuedProcess wrote:

I wonder if Adam called them that because he felt their motives weren't compelling enough to him. Alot of reporting in the media seems to brush off Adam as just "obsessed with Columbine" but i don't think he was that interested in it particular and was more focused on mass murder as a whole.

I wonder if he felt they were more morons for the absolute catastrophe their plans were on the day of the killings. Their bombs didn't go off, they had no alternative plan, they repeatedly passed up opportunities to kill as many people as they could, etc.

Probably that too considering the shooting part was only the second part of their plans after what they hope when the bombs exploded. Plus the fact they weren't really experienced with firearms and were clumsy with them at best.

Yea and Eric and Dylan would've called him pathetic and they at least never gunned down little school children. As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

bradt93 wrote:

Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

So they were a couple of mean old bullies after all?

bradt93 wrote:

As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

And they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, having been sadistic murderers themselves.

bradt93 wrote:

Yea and Eric and Dylan would've called him pathetic and they at least never gunned down little school children. As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

Yeah they gunned down big school children. Absolute scholars and gentleman Eric and Dylan were.

Sarcasm aside, your obvious fanboy-ing over Eric and Dylan all over this forum is egregious and frankly, a little sad.

I agreed with Adam. Columbine is boring.
Also it's just funny how people yelled on Adam because he killed "innocent angels". But when human already 14-year-old they already saying "sad, but shit sometimes happens". You're hypocrite.

You don't care about them when they grown up, all what you wanted it's screaming "died our children!1!1!". Adam knew how hurt hypocrite people like you. They even destroying school, when never don't doing this in another cases.

HanShotFirst wrote:

bradt93 wrote:

Yea and Eric and Dylan would've called him pathetic and they at least never gunned down little school children. As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

Yeah they gunned down big school children. Absolute scholars and gentleman Eric and Dylan were.

Sarcasm aside, your obvious fanboy-ing over Eric and Dylan all over this forum is egregious and frankly, a little sad.  

I'm not a "fan boy" of either of them, I just said I don't think they would go that low to shoot 1st graders.

bradt93 wrote:

HanShotFirst wrote:

bradt93 wrote:

Yea and Eric and Dylan would've called him pathetic and they at least never gunned down little school children. As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

Yeah they gunned down big school children. Absolute scholars and gentleman Eric and Dylan were.

Sarcasm aside, your obvious fanboy-ing over Eric and Dylan all over this forum is egregious and frankly, a little sad.  

I'm not a "fan boy" of either of them, I just said I don't think they would go that low to shoot 1st graders.

There is literally no difference between killing a 12th grader and killing a 1st grader.

emanresu wrote:

"Spree shooters are often motivated by a hatred of humans in the aggregate (For various reasons, but that is entirely irrelevant) and sometimes also act in an attempt to ameliorate some lackluster philosophy which they have established in their minds, such as the two ubiquitous morons Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold."

Was this Adam's motivation?

(I wish that he had elaborated on some of the "irrelevant" reasons for a person to decide to hate humanity because judging by the rest of the composition, it would have been some sweeping projection of personal experience and a useful insight into his exact reasons for having "nothing other than scorn for humanity.")

(What did he find to be lacking in their philosophical outlook? What points did they disagree on?)

Did Adam think that Eric and Dylan were morons for coming to the conclusion that murder was the solution to their philosophical struggles or did he just think that they were moronic because he disagreed with their philosophical conclusions?

If it was the second one, what was Adam trying to accomplish with his mass murder?

If it was the first, that he didn't think mass murder was a legitimate philosophical statement (or protest or solution) of some sort, did he do it just because he hated humanity and wanted to vent his rage? Did he do it just because he was going to commit suicide anyway and wanted to experience killing for himself?

How much effort did Adam put into his attack? Evidence suggests that he didn't just want to be a spree killer but a successful spree killer. Why did he care?

QuestionMark wrote:

bradt93 wrote:

HanShotFirst wrote:

bradt93 wrote:

Yea and Eric and Dylan would've called him pathetic and they at least never gunned down little school children. As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

Yeah they gunned down big school children. Absolute scholars and gentleman Eric and Dylan were.

Sarcasm aside, your obvious fanboy-ing over Eric and Dylan all over this forum is egregious and frankly, a little sad.  

I'm not a "fan boy" of either of them, I just said I don't think they would go that low to shoot 1st graders.

There is literally no difference between killing a 12th grader and killing a 1st grader.

You don't think most people would be more disgusted with the idea of harm being inflicted on 6 year olds vs 17 year olds?

QuestionMark wrote:

There is literally no difference between killing a 12th grader and killing a 1st grader.

You are absolutely correct - when it comes to taking innocent lives, age is irrelevant. That being said, I think Columbine is a bit different because the victims were Eric and Dylan's contemporaries. It's no justification, but the fact that they were current students at the school and hated the social climate somehow makes it easier to wrap your head around. They saw people they actually knew during the massacre, which is pretty scary.

With Sandy Hook, Lanza hadn't attended there in years. The Wikipedia says he went to a different school by 2004, so the poor children he was aiming at were complete strangers to him. There's not much of a connection there, whereas you can't really say the same thing for Columbine.

I think Adam Lanza hated humanity because they people gave him negative emotions.

To me, Adam also referred to Eric and Dylan partly satirically by calling them "ubiquitous morons" because some Columbiners copy their attitude, their behavior, their style to some extent and a minority even commits school shootings. He might have been sick of hearing of imitating copycats that usually scarcely kill anyone. He felt obligated to criticize in the situation. Maybe that was his intention, nevertheless, I'm still unsure.

sscc wrote:

What did he find to be lacking in their philosophical outlook? What points did they disagree on?)

I feel an important question that needs to be asked here too is "what did Adam think Eric and Dylan believed in". Note how I didn't say "what did Eric and Dylan believe in" but what Adam believed those beliefs were. Because I think if you were to take a trip to Hell and ask Eric and Dylan to explain their philosophy, they'd probably retort back with "what the fuck are you talking about?". The only thing I can think of as being a "philosophy" was Eric's ideas related to the process of natural selection. The both of them accused humanity of being mindless apes that blindly follow the mainstream, but I could hardly consider this much of a philosophy, and I'd be at great loss to see how or why Adam would take umbrage with this line of thinking.

sscc wrote:

Did Adam think that Eric and Dylan were morons for coming to the conclusion that murder was the solution to their philosophical struggles or did he just think that they were moronic because he disagreed with their philosophical conclusions?

If it was the second one, what was Adam trying to accomplish with his mass murder?

If it was the first, that he didn't think mass murder was a legitimate philosophical statement (or protest or solution) of some sort, did he do it just because he hated humanity and wanted to vent his rage? Did he do it just because he was going to commit suicide anyway and wanted to experience killing for himself?

What I'd really like to know is why did Adam differentiate a general hatred of humanity (which seems to be, for reasons he decided were "irrelevant" to mention in this passage, a large part of his motive) from whatever "lackluster philosophy" he decided Eric and Dylan believed in? Eric and Dylan demonstrably hated the species they were a part of, so why would Adam suggest that they were motivated by a "lackluster philosophy"?

I almost have to wonder if he threw in a jab at Eric and Dylan just for kicks, because if I was to consider what a "lackluster philosophy" would mean to Adam Lanza, and the kinds of spree killers that would adopt such a thing, My mind would immediately jump to Anders Breivik, who killed people in a bid to prevent Islamic migration to the West, or Pekka Auvinen, who talked of wanting to start an unspecified revolution. Eric and Dylan don't strike me as particularly philosophical.

QuestionMark wrote:

There is literally no difference between killing a 12th grader and killing a 1st grader.

There is a very big difference. First-graders are pure, innocent, and unable to defend themselves. Twelfth-graders are not innocent; they are obnoxious, hedonistic, selfish morons who could've defended themselves quite well if they weren't too cowardly to do anything other than escape or hide under tables. Adam was also a coward because he shot little children instead of high school students.

KMFDM wrote:

First-graders are pure, innocent, and unable to defend themselves.

If you were to say that after having had the unholy experience of getting beaten and mocked as a child, by other children, it would sound like a huge fucking joke.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] agreed.

QuestionMark wrote:

If you were to say that after having had the unholy experience of getting beaten and mocked as a child, by other children, it would sound like a huge fucking joke.

Why do you have to curse for no reason? Why are you so angry? Calm down. Probably almost everyone has been hurt and mocked as a child by other children both in elementary school and high school and it is much worse in high school. First-graders do not tend to be as large, strong, imaginative and vicious as students in high school and college (or coworkers at a workplace).

If you just meant that I elaborated first-graders' harmlessness in my earlier post yesterday, I guess you're right.

KMFDM wrote:

QuestionMark wrote:

There is literally no difference between killing a 12th grader and killing a 1st grader.

There is a very big difference. First-graders are pure, innocent, and unable to defend themselves. Twelfth-graders are not innocent; they are obnoxious, hedonistic, selfish morons who could've defended themselves quite well if they weren't too cowardly to do anything other than escape or hide under tables. Adam was also a coward because he shot little children instead of high school students.

I both agree and disagree with this statement. It's almost as if there's an undertone of justification for the murder of 17 year olds over children. I highly doubt that many that survived could be considered cowards for not approaching someone with an arsenal of guns.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but hurt caused in childhood can very change human. If someone bullied in elementary school, he don't care about "in high school bully worse". He already bullied, depressed, sad and other.

Also you sounds like this people who want prohibit abortion and when child born they like "oh, okay. I'm fuck out". You worried about little kids and you didn't care about adult kids 14-18 years.

You're hypocrite.

Hey guys, I know this subject can definitely be heated. We’ve had these discussions before. Let’s make sure we keep everything really super respectful.

I am someone who believes there is a difference between what Adam did and what Eric and Dylan did because I think there is a difference to have anger and hatred towards the world and lash out at your peers than being an adult who kills first graders.I don’t think any of these mass shootings are justified in anyway, But I can have more empathy for teenagers who feel angry and out-of-control than an adult who decides to hurt children like that.

I don’t know enough about Sandyhook to really give more of an opinion. To be honest I can’t bear to research it. Which is my own fault. It’s my own ignorance.

Another thought I just had! Brenda Spencer was an older teenager and she shot at an elementary school? Yet I don’t think people hate her as much as Adam Lanza. Do you think it has to do with the amount of people he killed, or their genders?

KMFDM wrote:

Why do you have to curse for no reason?

Because I fucking like to fucking curse.

I don't like people who don't curse. Respectfully, I ask that you stop taking umbrage with any usage of swear words that I use. Please.

KMFDM wrote:

First-graders do not tend to be as large, strong, imaginative and vicious as students in high school and college (or coworkers at a workplace).

But they aren't innocent. They're not nice. More often then not, children are more hateful and less empathetic than adults. There's a reason why calling someone immature is considered a put-down.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] yea its true killing a 1st grader and killing a 12 grader is literally no difference but somewhere down the line can you say those 12 graders were completely innocent??? No ,They were not they.(Not to say they deserved it.) But literally Eric and Dylan were bullied, ignored, and isolated those students had a connection and they could’ve prevented it. There was literally nothing the those kids could have done to stop it.They had no signs no nothing to indicate that was going to happen and to to top it off what connection did he honestly have with those kids ???

Bruce Wayne wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] yea its true killing a 1st grader and killing a 12 grader is literally no difference but somewhere down the line can you say those 12 graders were completely innocent???  No ,They were not they.(Not to say they deserved it.) But literally Eric and Dylan were bullied, ignored, and isolated  those students had a connection and they could’ve prevented it.

What the fuck? This is literal victim-blaming.

The logical leaps some people will go to make E&D look "better" or more justified in their killing spree is astounding.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Nobody is saying E&D are any what better or killing those students are justified. What I’m basically saying is E&D somewhat had a connection (NOT MOTIVE) to kill those students.E&D will forever be wrong for what they did. And here’s the thing Adam is just as equally wrong for killing those kids.And I don’t know if you have children of your own that age but it is absolutely sickening, repulsive, and ghastly to hear my SIX YEAR OLD son/daughter was fatally shot and killed for no reason and of course nobody wants to their child killed but just saying the Little innocent kids didn’t chance. Some of them didn’t even what a gun is. Why do think Sandy Hook was torn down ??? Because of simple fact those were little kids who couldn’t even call for help.Killing a older person wrong but killing Children ??? Children???That’s something else.What could a child do that would make you have to kill a young, halfway, not even mentally developed human being

A bit peculiar since he says he was the anarcho capitalist libertarian type, tho I guess not yet old enough to see that as a lackluster philosophy. Brooks Brown said he was rly into Ayn Rand then, and I don't think it's a stretch to say Eric and Dylan were smarter than he was.

"Ubiquitous morons" a strange term. Presumably, he means ubiquitous in discussions about mass murder, and resents that as he was also interested in other cases.

QuestionMark wrote:

KMFDM wrote:

First-graders are pure, innocent, and unable to defend themselves.

If you were to say that after having had the unholy experience of getting beaten and mocked as a child, by other children, it would sound like a huge fucking joke.

They certainly are far more defenceless though.

Maybe he didn't agree with Eric's thoughts on Natural Selection?

Well, he does have a point in his reasoning. Eric and Dylan were just two angsty teens who shot up a school due to years of bullying, and as an act of revenge. Quite pathetic if you ask me. Imagine worshipping two edgy teens when you could worship a prestigious intelligent individual like Adam Lanza.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I wasn’t referring to myself, just trying to appeal to the younger generation.

Screamingophelia wrote:

Another  thought I just had! Brenda Spencer was an older teenager and she shot at an elementary school? Yet I don’t think people hate her as much as Adam Lanza. Do you think it has to do with the amount of people he killed, or their genders?

Brenda Spencer gets very little attention in general, which is probably why it seems like people hate her less than AL. I had almost forgotten that she existed at all. Female mass killers are very rare and yet they get much less attention than their male counterparts, which I find strange. You would think that people would be fascinated by them given how few of them there are..

Screamingophelia wrote:

Another  thought I just had! Brenda Spencer was an older teenager and she shot at an elementary school? Yet I don’t think people hate her as much as Adam Lanza. Do you think it has to do with the amount of people he killed, or their genders?

It is almost certainly both. Look at how Andrea Yates was portrayed in the media vs. Lanza and you'll see the massive double standards at play.

cakeman wrote:

"Ubiquitous morons" a strange term. Presumably, he means ubiquitous in discussions about mass murder, and resents that as he was also interested in other cases.

Oh absolutely, he even mentioned in one of his old posts that he didn't want to read about the Tucson shooting at the time that it happened because he found cases with media saturation to be unbearable.

bradt93 wrote:

Yea and Eric and Dylan would've called him pathetic and they at least never gunned down little school children. As a matter of fact, Eric and Dylan would've made fun of that freak.

Such a bizarre thing to call him pathetic for. It’s not like his mass murder was a display of bravado, in that case sure, then judge it over such criteria.

I feel he said this to distance himself from them.

Ossetia wrote:

I would agree with him, when he calls them "ubiquitous morons". I get incredibly tired of hearing about them.

There are far more interesting shooters out there, with Adam himself being one of them.

He really isn't that interesting.

I think it's pretentious side of Adam. Columbine couple was simply too famous for his tastes. It's like pretentious music fan: "Oh, those fucking Radiohead, they are too mainstream. So overrated comparing to Odesza".
Also maybe im wrong, but didnt he know a lot about Columbine and was able to answer most obscure and unsignificant questions about them? I think i read something like that in his old posts from Columbine board.

.

Ossetia wrote:

Ivan wrote:

He really isn't that interesting.

To me, he is, at least. He's definitely the shooter that I am most interested in.

Then that's your opinion. You stated it like it was a fact, which it isn't, because I find him odd and uninteresting.

cakeman wrote:

"Ubiquitous morons" a strange term. Presumably, he means ubiquitous in discussions about mass murder, and resents that as he was also interested in other cases.

I wonder if he also resented the fact that their influence bled into a lot of other shooters and foiled attacks. I can hardly imagine him being thrilled with Pekka or Alvaro Castillo unapologetically fanboying over Eric and Dylan. Likewise I'm sure he was disappointed that so many would-be killers emulated Eric and Dylan too much and ended up getting busted for it because people noticed the obvious warning signs.

Perhaps he viewed Columbine as not being worthy of being the "most famous school shooting" and so thought that Eric and Dylan were ubiquitous morons because of that.