I don’t know that he was. He is a terrorist. Doesn’t matter why.
But, in reading his blog, eventually reading what he says there’s something that is beyond being introverted. I am very curious at people who know the signs of a troubled household may say.
As is common in the aftermath the focus is entirely on anything he said indicative of political identity. The news says that he identified as conservative even that he was against gay marriage, but it doesn’t bother quoting him.
Actually reading the language and justifications he uses there are things that if this was someone just writing a paper I had to grade I would raise my eyebrows a bit.
At the very least I think something happened to him. I’m gonna base this on three of his posts. And yes, I get that he was an alleged “introvert”, I understand he probably didn’t have a GF, but at 23 even having had relationships I was not savvy, yet would never look at the way he does.
First. When he is writing about Gay Marriage.
Friday, May 11, 2012
“Why gay marriage should be illegal
In everything I’ve read him say THIS is the most odd statement (to me). He is responding (as an assignment to another classmate’s post from what I am totally guessing but how this kind of class goes in
There are a couple things wrong with your argument that I would like to correct. First, falling in love is a choice. When you “fall in love” you become infatuated with your significant other, and you will eventually fall out of love.
Ok I realize the bolded (but not underlined) statements while telling, aren’t completely odd for a person with no true loving relationships surrounding him.
But, when you add in the last statement that is underlined that you will always fall out of love it all just becomes stranger. I’m not sure what this means except it’s a sad world view that love is not a thing of hope. But, transactionally viewing love as 23 like an economist increasing propensity to be happy knowing everyone falls out of love i’ll say if I ever read that statement I would re-read then wonder.
Obviously nothing of this makes him a criminal, it gives clues to a lot I think.
This statement I realize is one of the bad analogies arguers against make, but I want to point out how much he talks about pedophilia in just 5 posts.
In addition, political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have ‘rights.’ What about pedophilia or . . . If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?”
Again, ok I get Bible thumping texans do say this and think “end of argument”. The one thing I would note was that he was taking this class to challenge himself to be better able to support what he thought was his political inclination (or discover it).
Now, while I am taking excerpts trust when I say that his views on sex offenders is the only which he has real citations, like he looked into it and uses any facts, it also is probably twice as long as some others.
Friday, March 30, 2012
“Why we might want to consider doing away with Sex Offender Registration.
I note that I actually agree per the constitution with some of his arguments (the ones about thinking about the concept of paying for your crime once). But he says here that sex offenders should eventually be free to live their lives. They shouldn’t make them suffer the rest of their life.
EXCEPT for serial rapists and pedophiles. I.e. they should suffer for the rest of their life.
I also want to point out this is an oddly (to me) personal statement like he is talking about someone in particular rather than saying “they”
“You have to really hate the guy to make him suffer for the rest of his life, even when his prison time is up. This sounds perfect for a serial rapist or pedophile.”
In theory, these registries are list of every sex offender in the state, with the his house location and other pertinent facts to help people avoid exposing themselves to such people. Megan’s Lawrequires sex offenders to register and update law enforcement every time they change location.
This is not the result. You have to really hate the guy to make him suffer for the rest of his life, even when his prison time is up. This sounds perfect for a serial rapist or pedophile, . . . .
He writes about two more paragraphs but goes out of his way to include these stats even pointing out he is doing that.
On a side note, one fifthof all rapes are committed by a juvenile.
And how effective is it? Even if you know about a registered sex offender in the neighborhood, what’s to stop him from doing it again? And that’s not taking into consideration that 95 percent of all cases are from someone the victim had already knew? And if he was really going to do it again, would the fact that he is on a list really going to stop him?
This is the point when I was reading that I first wondered “is he talking about a particular he?” that you can’t stop them no-matter what? Also, knowing a stat that is basically saying family, acquaintances commit the most often.
Death Penalty
Friday, March 9, 2012
“An argument for the Death Penalty
Second, Living criminals harm and murder, again – executed ones do not. Rivas was a known murderer, and had escaped prison once. If he had gotten life without parole, he could have escaped again.
After I read all these thoughts about pedophiles. This stuck out to me. Living criminals will cause harm again. There are stats that support the best predictor of future crime is past but that’s not really what he’s saying. He also goes outside of murderers (even though only murder can be punished by a death sentence per SCOTUS) and just the choice given the way he speaks . . . “harm”, harm doesn’t fit it’s a seriously empathetic word.
I am sure nothing can be garnered from this alone. But, in a situation where any word can indicate motive etc., I just find the things he says, stray from the absolute Texan Conservative and strike me as personal.
I can’t think of what else he may be thinking of. I suppose I am assuming adding what he did, said may be indicative (I am sure people with bad home lives are inclined to) but there are many other things out there I am really curious what people think especially that know. Doesn’t it seem like he was some kind of victim believing the person couldn’t be stopped and they should suffer forever? Any evidence of why or what happened.
Oh he is still a terrorist.