Je suis joined jewels.
- Jan 19, 2009
No, I don't.anthony87 said:I read what you wrote and the part that stood out for me is now bolded so that you can see what I'm refering to. You stated yourself that the games were part of the motive according to the killer. Which is why I asked if you really believe that.lacktheknack said:You don't read what I write, do you? Or do you not acknowledge viewpoints that aren't your own? (I'm not referring to mine, either, I'm talking about the grieving families.)anthony87 said:So just because the killer said so, you believe that video games really did in fact have something to do with his actions?lacktheknack said:No. This would be the killer saying "THIS CAR MADE ME DO IT", which absolutely no one would buy.anthony87 said:That's some god awful flawed logic right there. By your line of reasoning if a bunch of people got run over by a nutjob with a car then should they temporarily stop selling cars as a sign of respect for the people killed?lacktheknack said:How dare they show basic respect to the families of the victims.ImprovizoR said:Those retailers are morons. And that's just putting it mildly.
If he had claimed that he read a book before killing your child, it doesn't matter how accurate the statement is, you'd be glad and comforted that the local bookstores pulled the book from shelves, even if only temporarily.
I don't give a damn how "calm and reasoned" you think you are (as evident in "the retailers are morons"), if you lost your child, you'd feel damn good about the killer's manifesto being thwarted in some way.
However, of the families of the victims, some believe that the games were a part of the motive - and they were. The killer has said so. Thus, it's respectful to temporarily stop selling the games.
Grieving has little to do with logic. Perfectly logical people don't grieve.
But it doesn't matter if I believe that, it matters if others believe that.