Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hagatha
Analog, I have to completely disagree with you when you say "stalking has nothing to do with homocide" ---it HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOMOCIDE.
Do you know how many women are killed or assaulted by their abusive partners who stalk them after they leave because they dared to usurp their control?
Can you say restraining order?
And this guy was stalking women he never dated....he was stalking women online and subsequently at the university. And the cops had been notified.
So yes, there were huge flags going up around this guy...even his english prof was afraid of him and had notified campus police.
|
Is "homocide" the killing of gay people, or something? Because I'm talking about homicide. (/sarcasm)
Moving on, I stand by my original assertion. Stalking is not about homicide. Stalking is about coveting, and it's about obsession. Often, it's part of a larger scheme within the mind of the stalker. They want to know everything the other person is doing for purposes of controlling their life. This notion of "control" is totally separate from stalking, the stalking just because a tool to carry out the other portions of their psychoses.
Your example of men who are abusive and then stalk their female (ex-?) partners only links because who already have homicidal intentions, anger, and control issues, can also be stalkers.
What you're asserting is a logical fallacy of association, much like saying "all people who drive cars, drive Ford Mustangs" when in fact the correct statement would be, "All people who drive Ford Mustangs are driving cars."
No, stalking has nothing to do with homicide- that does not mean that stalking, in itself, cannot be yet another tool that controlling, dangerous people can employ.
Just because the psychological phenomenon of stalking includes coveting and obsession, and a person who has control issues and is homicidal happens to covet and obsess over someone, does not make the two mutually exclusive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
It seems to me there were a lot of people asking "why" and now they are mad at the messenger that had the answer to the question
|
Bravo, I agree.
Of course, I also believe that it ties in directly to what I was saying before; people refuse to believe that there is no "real" explanation, and they don't take psychological disorder as a real explanation.
They wanted a "why", what they got is precisely why, but the "why" is psychosis- paranoid delusions of persecution and martyrdom. Watching the tape is paranoid schizophrenia 101.
But no one wants to accept that people can do such a thing for "no reason" (chemical imbalance in the brain). They're looking for parents who beat him, they're looking for sexual assault as a child, they want a royally screwed-up past and bad upbringing to put a nice little bow on the whole thing.
Well, I'm sorry to say, there's no nice little bow going on this. The guy was mentally ill, and that's that. It
did, in fact, happen for no reason whatsoever.
Can we all move on, now?