Well I sort of think you might be confusing my statements with logical fallacies I have not made. I'm always pretty careful with my language because as an attorney I realize there are rarely absolutes and a comma makes a difference. You know what I mean?
So if I say, "Hmm. The creature has fangs and fur. Thus it's a sign that it
couldbe a dog.", you sort of appear to be reading that statement as me saying "All dogs have fangs and fur therefore any creature with fangs and fur must be a dog."
However that's not what I said. Not close.
I don't know, I kind of see this pattern routinely in cases where people will address each issue or item of circumstantial evidence and pick it apart to show how, "well look, I can explain why this one particular item proves nothing and if I can do that for most of them, there's no case," instead of understanding that these things cannot be viewed in vacuum. It is the whole picture, not an individual puzzle piece that matters. Does a cumulation of things paint a picture that makes some conclusion more likely than not?
That's what I look at.
I didn't mention mental illness on the part of any of their parents. I mentioned paranoia, thoughts of revenge and a criminal record, as well as general family dysfunction. But never did I state those are a "proven marker of who a child will grow up to be or what there capable of". That's a super definitive and nonsensical statement that I didn't make and never would. However, parental criminality and family dysfunction
when combined with other things,
may be a sign that a couple of fresh faced boys aren't so sweet and healthy and may indeed have issues that render them capable of destruction and evil.
No. Long hours playing wildnerness games is indeed not more commonly known as camping. There is zero to suggest these two were avid campers engaged in fun outdoor activities with a group of like minded friends. Bryer's dad was pretty specific: "They considered themselves survivalists. 'They liked to go into the woods and play war.'"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-killings-is-on-a-suicide-mission-father/amp/
That's not how I've ever camped. I think it's cute to think they were just wholesome boys out in the fresh air having fun but that's really not what Bryer's dad described.
Looking at my statement again, about video games, I specifically stated: "hours and hours watching YouTube and playing video games, both of
which can appeal to anti-social types and make them less able to learn to cope with the real world."
Sure, there can be and are social aspects to many video games. Many are interactive and involve teams and lots of dialogue and back and forth. But respectfully, so?
Looking back at what Bryer's dad said about them: "He described his son’s upbringing as being troubled, with his parents’ going through a bitter separation in 2005.
The teen allegedly turned to video games and YouTube as his main influences, his father said."
From the link above.
I don't think that's healthy.
Video games didn't cause this. Nor violent movies. I think I've been clear on that. I find that laughable.
However, it is undeniable that introverts and people who isolate themselves and lack social skills may be drawn to spending hours online playing games or watching YouTube.
But again, I'm looking at signs that together, not apart, may show that these two displayed evidence that not all was okay. That they had serious issues.
All of the above
coupled with statements about wanting to kill or harm people as some schoolmates have discussed, AND an interest in violent and hateful ideology, indicate to me that yes, they seem to match the profile of many young spree killers or mass murderers.
I'm not persuaded by their fresh faces and sweet smiles. There were some indications that there was something going on with these two.
