"A loner"

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:00 am

There's nothing to understand about Cho. He wasn't rational. There wasn't a big lesson we are supposed to learn.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:33 am

In this link provided previously by PyroSylph, the article ends with this quote:

Cho's great-aunt, Kim Yang-soon, said Cho was diagnosed with autism after coming to U.S. in 1992. Speaking from her home in South Korea, she described Cho as "very cold" and said her niece was constantly worried about him.

"Every time I called and asked how he was, she would say she was worried about him," Kim said, according to a translation from the AP. "Who would have known he would cause such trouble, the idiot."

Although obviously he had internal contributing factors and it seems that his behavior was disturbing enough to warrant intervention (which was obviously insufficient), I would hardly say that there were no external contributing factors.

sschaula wrote:There wasn't a big lesson we are supposed to learn.

To say there was nothing to learn is to say that nothing needs improvement. I disagree.

Understanding causality means looking at the whole picture. I think that Cho was right about there having been a billion things that could have been done to prevent that day from happening like that. I agree that he wasn't rational, but apparently neither were the people around him, or the system.
.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:46 am

You were saying he was misunderstood. I was disagreeing. I understand him.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:59 am

Elizabeth,

Even people who see that and understand it when it is a few steps removed from it are blind to it when it is so under their nose that they could actually do something about it - like Nat for example.

No, I knew what was going on in your case and I suggested that people should stop. However, you chose to do something like Cho did, on a much smaller level. You went an an emotionally abusive "rampage" at Steel Woods by posting disgusting pictures which were designed to attack others psychologically. You had no right to do that, and none of your excuses and justifications make it right, just as none of Cho's justifications for his far more egregious behavior can excuse it.

Blaming me for your problems is not appropriate when I repeatedly suggested that those who were harassing you to stop because you were clearly emotionally disturbed. In addition, you were never being harassed for no reason. You had antagonized Katy and others on numerous occasions. That isn't my fault, either.

In fact, I think you're being emotionally abusive right now. You've read this thread and you know how difficult this tragedy has been for me, so you're apparently choosing to hone in on that and try to make me feel guilty of the kind of thing that may have driven Cho to his attacks. Thanks, I appreciate that. Now I get to deal with guilt by association from both sides of the fence.

Meh. What else is new?

At that time, I was definitely thinking that I could understand why people go up into towers with boxes of ammo and just start picking off people as they came by. There is a serious ugliness that runs through humanity in either an active or a passive form. I went to the furthest lengths that I was willing to go to show these people how ugly their behavior was, and they never understood. I recall the QRS stating that there have been no great female philosophers for the same reason that there have been no female mass murderers, so apparently by not helping to reduce the overpopulation problem, in some people's minds I am proving that females are useless pieces of shit. It's just that I don't believe that popping a few dozen people would do any good. The fact that people still don't understand Cho proves that.

You should get help. The world is not going to change, and human nature is not going to change. At some point, you have to face that. Right or wrong, it's up to you to change, because nobody else will. I realized that and I got help. Neither shooting or lesser abusive acts (such as posting the offensive pictures) is justified. Cho's actions were wrong, and so were yours. Both of you should have gotten help rather than going the route you did. Regardless of how anyone else is treating you, it's up to you to make positive changes, because nobody else can do it for you.

For me of all people to say this is deeply ironic, but grow up.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:28 am

Unidian wrote:The world is not going to change, and human nature is not going to change. At some point, you have to face that.

I have, and that is why I have relaxed on my world peace endeavors. This is hell, and there is nothing that can be comprehensively done about it. The best I can do is apon death, dissipate my energy, and not return. Meanwhile, biding my time in this, my last corporeal existence, I should do that which will lead me to a sense of a state of completion/satisfaction at the moment of death.
.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:46 am

E,

I have, and that is why I have relaxed on my world peace endeavors. This is hell, and there is nothing that can be comprehensively done about it.

Be the change you want to see in the world. It's not just a sappy pop-platitude, there's a lot of insight there. You're absolutely right that nothing can be done about the outside world. All change comes from inside, one individual at a time.

As you now know, "world peace" is for the spiritually naive. There will never be world peace, because that is not what the world is about. Peace comes from a deeper place, and it is only available on an individual basis. You're lucky, in a sense. Many people never discover what is wrong with the concept of "world peace" the hard way, as you have, and therefore never have the opportunity to really work on themselves.

The best I can do is apon death, dissipate my energy, and not return.

I disagree. The best you can do is to forget the world and work on yourself. Someone once said "The hardest task one can have is to continue to love his fellows despite all reasons he should not." The author defines that achievement as "greatness." It requires no character to throw up one's hands and say "screw it." Why settle for that? Why not really shove one in their collective faces by becoming a person of strength and character despite all their attempts to ruin you? It really is the best revenge.

Meanwhile, biding my time in this, my last corporeal existence, I should do that which will lead me to a sense of a state of completion/satisfaction at the moment of death.

What do you have in mind?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:25 am

I agree that you should get help, E.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:47 am

Unidian wrote:What do you have in mind?

I felt my best when I was doing a good job of being of help to others and making life better for other people. Various manifestations of evil overpowered my ability to continue that in the way that I was, so what I have to find is a possible way to accomplish that. I am mature enough now to accept that I have limitations, and logical enough to be able to determine what those limitations are. My next step is to rebuild enough strength to be able to accomplish my potential within my limitations.

One step to doing this is to improve my trust in myself. Most of the mistakes I have made in my life were done as a result of second-guessing myself or listening to others who I deferred to as authority figures.

I also need to practice listening to myself - which is slightly different from trusting myself. I believe there are strong similarities between the spiritual illness of the populace and the obesity epidemic. Just as the body naturally says exactly when it is hungry or thirsty and will crave the sorts of nutrients that it needs - and will tell a person when it is no longer hungry or thirsty, so will the spirit tell a person what it really needs. Obesity happens because people have turned a deaf ear to their bodies. Parents demand that children clean their plate even after they complain that they are full and reward them with dessert, give them sweets as rewards, and teach them all kinds of cues to eat other than listening to their bodies - and when eating, people pay more attention to the taste, the oral sensation, and the quantity of remaining food than they do to their body's signals - unless they get so full they hurt or have difficulty breathing. The voice of the body is soft, but the voice of conditioning is loud. I believe the same is with the spirit. People become conditioned into certain behaviors by various worldly influences and the voice of that conditioning is loud, especially in comparison to the voice of the Source that indicates the spirit's true needs. Training ourselves to listen to the softer voices takes practice.

I was better off when I did have the unconditional love for all beings, and thought that intimate knowledge of the mindset espoused here would be worth a brief detour (somewhere on the main forum you could probably find the thread with my experiment of shutting off all emotion), but the detour turned out to be not only anything but brief and I was not nearly so able to able to return to my previous mindset as I had supposed. I came here looking for more awareness so that I would not be fooled again, and instead I ended up in a ditch. The state of unconditional love for all was initially snapped onto me during a period of profound stress. Earning it back through conscious thought and action is very difficult, but that is my next goal.
.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:50 am

I came here looking for more awareness so that I would not be fooled again, and instead I ended up in a ditch.

This is what I saw happen to you, Elizabeth, and it's part of the reason why I started speaking out against the views of the forum.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:02 am

sschaula wrote:I agree that you should get help, E.

I'm already back on meds, and there is nothing further that counseling can do for me. Most of the counselors out there don't know any more than I do about any of this, and don't have as much insight as I do. The last counselor I had who was any good eventually just kept repeating "so, what would you tell someone who came to you with that problem?" and after I would tell her, she would confirm that was right and that was what I needed to tell myself. Basically, there isn't anything that they can do for me that I can not do for myself. Not everyone is like that, and I do recognize the value of input from others, but at this point I am more likely to get better input from a quality friend than from a counselor, and best able to handle this by working through it myself.
.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:29 am

What meds? I hope you figure it out...

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:03 am

Nat got caught up in anger that was directed elsewhere. I was an ass to him because I was being very closely censored in another debate where people were discussing the mental health issue more in depth and suggesting we involuntarily commit all mental patients regardless of how their doctors think they are functioning because we may snap at any moment. While I find the person elsewhere who said these things to be a disgusting individual, the censorship from the administration there does not justify my behavior towards Nat here.

I do, however have a couple of comments here.

I don't think it's ever going to be possible for us to diagnose him in any way since he is dead. All of our information comes through the media and ratings demand they describe him as different. Maybe he was ill and maybe he wasn't, but declaring him so while his doctors are saying no is irresponsible, and feeds into morons like the one listed above. And while I know full well that you do not share her opinions, spreading that idea is dangerous.

As to no one saying I'm a shooter - that just isn't true. I've seen it around on this subject already. You are not saying I'm a shooter and I regret lumping "everyone who says he's schizophrenic" into the category with the other two ladies elsewhere.

My reasons for wanting to deny him having schizophrenia are not just because it is a diagnosis I share. He shares things in common with us (such as the anti-rich loner status) but he also shares having been abused by his peers. I think efforts to paint him as mentally ill are, in large part, efforts to deny that society plays a role in creating these monsters. No, that's not justification for him. However, I do think that large changes in society's behavior could have changed the outcome here.

We have a chance at something good coming out of this tragedy. Writing him away as "mentally ill" and "would have happened no matter what we did" only serves to allow us to go back to what we were doing before and ignore changes that desperately need to be made.

And I reflexively believe the media? You know better than that.

No, but there is no other information available to you... makes it hard to be objective. And seeing what he has done gives you 20/20 hindsight. There's no real way to know what people thought a week ago today... even what they say now is affected by what they know now.

We have the videos! And it's no good explaining away his crazy state by pointing out that he had just killed two people, because that only shows he had just killed two people. You don't kill two people and then go nuts. That's backwards causality. Sensible causality suggests that you go nuts, then kill two people, in that order. And if you're really nuts, you make some "manifesto" videos for the media and then go kill 30 more.

I've only been able to find selected clips that NBC wants to show of the videos. Do we have them all somewhere?

PyroSylph · Post by **PyroSylph** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:45 am

FOX News has now said that Cho was taunted by his peers at Westfield High School because he had trouble speaking English.
Being picked on and being mentally ill (I in no way believe being picked on can cause schizophrenia) and we see the end results.

They should change the laws that allow doctors to disclose patient records when that patient has a history of being a danger to themselves or others. It seems so many knew he was on the edge, but couldn't tell anyone or no one would listen.

PyroSylph · Post by **PyroSylph** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:48 am

We will never get to see all the videos, Katy. They have only released a small portion of the "manifesto." I doubt we will ever see that in it's entirety either. At this point, I don't think it would benefit anyone other than forensic psychologists or criminal investigators to see them. Morbid curiosity be damned.

They will probably release his plays, eventually.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:15 am

Nat got caught up in anger that was directed elsewhere. I was an ass to him because I was being very closely censored in another debate where people were discussing the mental health issue more in depth and suggesting we involuntarily commit all mental patients regardless of how their doctors think they are functioning because we may snap at any moment. While I find the person elsewhere who said these things to be a disgusting individual, the censorship from the administration there does not justify my behavior towards Nat here.

NFBB? Sword of Honor? Those uber-idiots came to mind immediately...

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:30 am

Katy,

My reasons for wanting to deny him having schizophrenia are not just because it is a diagnosis I share. He shares things in common with us (such as the anti-rich loner status) but he also shares having been abused by his peers. I think efforts to paint him as mentally ill are, in large part, efforts to deny that society plays a role in creating these monsters.

Absolutely. While I'm of the opinion that he was ill, I totally agree that focusing on illness as the the only factor involved is an attempt to absolve society of any responsibility. But it has now come out that he was seriously abused by peers during high school, as I was certain of all along. There are millions of mentally ill people in America. Mental illness alone rarely, if ever, results in these kind of disasters. It takes more than that - and abuse of some sort is almost always involved.

If they were able to find evidence of molestation, they would be all over that, speculating that it was largely to blame. But when the issue is abuse by peers, by society itself, they suddenly don't want to hear it or talk about it.

We have a chance at something good coming out of this tragedy. Writing him away as "mentally ill" and "would have happened no matter what we did" only serves to allow us to go back to what we were doing before and ignore changes that desperately need to be made.

Agreed. He does seem to have been mentally ill, but that's only half the story. The other half is the part that built on his existing illness to cause a disaster. I don't believe that mental illness alone would have resulted in these events. It wouldn't have happened "no matter what," that's just an excuse made by society apologists who don't want to look at the real issues.

And by refusing to look at them, they ensure it will happen again. We had a similar opportunity after Columbine and nothing was done. As a result, we now have this. If no one will address the abuse that is contributing to these tragedies, then I feel they are basically saying they are willing to have them happen in order to maintain the status quo.

It's too high a price to pay so our kids can have a few laughs making fun of "the weird guy."

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:52 am

Nat,

If they were able to find evidence of molestation, they would be all over that, speculating that it was largely to blame. But when the issue is abuse by peers, by society itself, they suddenly don't want to hear it or talk about it.

That wasn't the case with Columbine.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:01 am

It wasn't?

It's pretty much universally acknowledged that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were ostracized and belittled by peers outside their small group. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:05 am

No, that was exactly my point. It's universally acknowledged that they were ostracized. If I understand you right, you were saying that society doesn't ever want to face that fact...

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:07 am

Oh. What I meant was that society refuses to do anything about it. It was acknowledged, but I'm not aware of anything significant being done to address the problem.

Also, in the case of Columbine, they had no choice but acknowledge social ostracism and abuse as a cause, because it was right there in their faces. In Cho's case, they have the option of focusing exclusively on his record of mental problems instead, allowing them to sweep the "Columbine factor" under the rug (even though Cho mentioned the Columbine shooters by name).

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:32 pm

Unidian wrote: NFBB? Sword of Honor? Those uber-idiots came to mind immediately...

No, I'm not massochistic enough to try that. Someone in Atlanta on an LJ community that is supposed to be for my friends to plan to get together and such. Not that it ever gets used for that... These are actually people I see in person quite often.

But it has now come out that he was seriously abused by peers during high school, as I was certain of all along. There are millions of mentally ill people in America. Mental illness alone rarely, if ever, results in these kind of disasters. It takes more than that - and abuse of some sort is almost always involved.

Exactly - sometimes mentally ill. almost always some kind of abuse. Why won't people focus on the abuse instead of the "other"? Find the similarities and focus energy there. My psychologist in the army told me that while schizophrenics are more likely to commit crimes, they are significantly less likely to commit mass murders or serial crimes. So, look where the commonalities are.

If they were able to find evidence of molestation, they would be all over that, speculating that it was largely to blame. But when the issue is abuse by peers, by society itself, they suddenly don't want to hear it or talk about it.

Yeah I actually hope that they do find such evidence because it'll focus attention on child abuse issues, and people will actually be willing to look at that... it's another issue that needs attention.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:49 pm

I really dispute the schizophrenia diagnosis. All that they seem to be basing that on is his statement of cancer in his head (which if you listen to it in context, he was also talking about throat slit from ear to ear, nailed to a cross, etc. so I think he was just speaking poetically about the pain he was in, and the "cancer" in his head actually referred to the feelings, thoughts, and ideas that grew in his head and killed his soul [here, soul= mindset of healthy attitudes]), and to his imaginary girlfriend Jelly the supermodel. I know how mean kids can be, including getting someone to say something and then taking it completely out of context to make the person saying it sound crazy. We can not know for sure what the context was, but it is entirely possible that while they were drinking together, the guys were teasing him about not having a girlfriend, and asked him to imagine if he had a girlfriend, what would she be like. I'm not saying that definitely was what happened, but I am saying that based on my experience of how things can get twisted around by mean people, that is a definitely possible scenario.

If these were the actual way things were, this would not indicate schizophrenia at all.
.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:09 pm

"Cho, if you had an imaginary girlfriend what would she be like?"
"Jelly!"

While it's possible, I don't know of any guys who'd want a girlfriend that was like jelly. Personally, I prefer peanut butter.

It seems much more likely that he really was insane. Also remember the referring to himself/his brother as "question mark". And do keep in mind that he just went and shot like 60 some people...sane people don't do that. Looking for rational causes seems futile to me.

I agree that the cancer thing was probably a metaphor for his bad feelings, etc.

Jamesh · Post by **Jamesh** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:24 pm

WE ARE GLAD HE IS DEAD BY CHO'S FAMILY

"THE grandad of university mass killer Cho Seung-Hui said last night: "Son of a bitch. He deserved to die.

...and he dismissed Cho - diagnosed with autism as an eight-year-old - as "a trouble-causer who has destroyed his mother's life".

Well there is probably your answer - his physical mind caused his conceptual mind to fuck up. Well either that or his grandad abused him which lead to his autism (note the similar total lack of empathy, a trait of autistics, from his genetic forefather).

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:42 pm

sschaula wrote:"Cho, if you had an imaginary girlfriend what would she be like?"
"Jelly!"

That is the kind of inane response that contributes to the crazy-making of statements. Try a scenario where they were all drunk and teasing Cho for not having a girlfriend, then...

A: (jerks laughing) Okay Cho, if (snicker) if you had a girlfriend - imagine her to be anything you want - what's she like?

Cho: (takes a swig of beer, swallows while thinking, then smiles) a supermodel.

A: (jerks laughing) A supermodel?

B: Hey, I'd like to have a supermodel for a girlfriend.

A: Okay, what would her name be?

B: (with Korean accent) Jilly (maybe short for Jillian of Gillian)

(drunken jerk): Jelly?

*************

James, granted that the diagnosis at age 8 corresponds with that he was moved to America at age 8, but autism is usually deteted by the age of 2. Also check the symptoms of autism as listed in that link, and compare them to the symptoms of child abuse listed on this link. Now ask yourself if an abusive family is going to say they are an abusive family, or that a particular child is the problem. It's late, so I don't feel like looking up supporting links on the following, but often in an abusive, especially a sexually abusive, situation, one child gets all the abuse and is blamed for all the problems of the family, and it is not switched to another child unless the child chosen for abuse is removed or leaves the home. Look it up if you don't believe me.
.