5 ms·

Putting so little value in other people life is a mental illness. Its not a question of perception. Considering your intellectual / material property over some

by maeln 7y ago

Putting so little value in other people life is a mental illness. Its not a question of perception. Considering your intellectual / material property over someone life is being a sociopath.

goldenkey 7y ago
It totally is a question of perception and philosophy. Death is literally a part of life. We all die. The value of life is what you make of it. The fact that this arsonist got roasted himself shows his perspective on the idea of "precious bodies" in general. He was wronged, palgiarized, steamrolled by an idomitable corporation and had no recourse. Je expressed in through corporeal action. You may disagree with the morality of his actions but your assessment of mental illness is just a way to end any discussion about what life is worth when it comes to being traded for political action, injustice, change, etc. We all live for something. Everyone chooses what to live and die for unless circumstance chooses for them.
- Razengan 7y ago
  At what point would you draw the line over "killing for something?" How about religion? Voices in someone's head? What if they affected you or your loved ones? Will you still laud their ""principles""?
- maeln 7y ago
  Society don't really care about you philosophical reflection on life and death. If this man was in fact defrauded by the company, he could have gone to court to solve the issue. Him considering that committing a mass murder, killing and injuring many innocent, is justifiable for the plagiarism is a mental illness. Trying to spin the conversation around philosophy and moral views to justify a mass murder is useless and seriously worrying about your own mental state and moral compass.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    There's no guarantee justice is upheld in court. Remember Dirty Harry? Most likely the legal route was already tried.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger. If one's morals justifies one to kill when one's own life or others' lives are not in danger, then they are mentally ill by our society's definition. Of course, mental illness being defined as holding behavior, emotional, or experience structures that deviate from the norm such that the person cannot function within their society in a productive manner. I think you'd be fascinated by the twists of someone with a personality disorder or someone on the schizophrenia spectrum. If someone claims they are god, or claims they are a wolf, and thus justified by self-definition of predator to predate on other humans, are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy?
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    > Are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy? By the discussed points I would have to say it’s both. It’s certainly a different philosophy, but it would most definitely be classified as mentally ill.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      The rhetoric I'm responding to discusses them as if they are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to respond that different philosophies can, in fact, be sick ones.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    "The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger." I guess all those soldiers who invaded Iraq, for example, were mentally ill, as were the politicians who ordered them to. As were all those involved in the many other invasions of other countries when they themselves weren't in any imminent danger. Same goes for guards who shoot to kill escaping prisoners and police who shoot to kill people to keep them from killing others while their own lives are not in danger. Then there are executioners who legally kill people sentenced to death by a court of law. All of these people must be mentally ill, by your definition. You should distinguish your definition from society's definition, because by society's definition all of these people are not mentally ill. In fact, society often rewards them with honors and praise, calling them heroes or at least paying them for their work and legally protecting them from prosecution for the killing they do. The suggestion to lock up such people in mental institutions because they're "mentally ill" would be considered laughable, insulting, and not worthy of serious consideration by the vast majority of society. All of this is not to say that any of the above are morally equivalent to the killings that were perpetrated in this tragedy, nor is this to claim that the perpetrator is not mentally ill (it's for psychologists to decide that), but if the perpetrator is mentally ill then they can't be branded as such merely because they "killed people and intended to kill people.. when their own life is not in imminent danger" without also branding as mentally ill all those mentioned above.
- overthemoon 7y ago
  The key thing people are misunderstanding about this issue is that not all points of view/ideologies/worldviews are morally neutral. The reasoning goes: Since no one could rationally choose to harm another person, there must be some pathological reason he chose to harm someone. But it's basically and simply true that people do things in their right minds all the time that lead to suffering. OP's point is that pathologizing behavior you don't like cuts off all reasoning about it. John Brown killed people, but was he mentally ill? What about US soldiers in Afghanistan? Put another way, there are plenty of smart white supremacists. They're not all toothless knuckle dragging illiterates. Some are highly educated. It's possible to do bad things not due to a defect in education or mental illness, but through moral deficiency. People in their right minds do evil things.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Thriptic 7y ago
  I'm not going to acknowledge the legitimacy of his motives because it's what he wants. He wants to be viewed as a martyr and to have his grievances heard and discussed, but killing 20+ people over stealing some IP (and not even a life changing innovation but a fucking manga) is categorically unacceptable in any society and is a disgusting act. Therefore, I will not even acknowledge that he has rational motives; he will be considered insane and disregarded as a fool, and I will move on without paying him or his "grand gesture" any mind. This is the ultimate punishment for an angry idealist who is demanding to be heard.
- imtringued 7y ago
  You seem to miss the point. Japan is a sovereign nation that has managed to protect itself for centuries. If someone ignores the justice system of that sovereign nation and uses his own justice system then he is threatening the sovereignity of the nation. The primary way nations defend themselves is through war and violence. Everyone can found their own nation, even on the grounds of an existing one. This is how countries have managed to declare independence for all of human history. A new nation that cannot defend itself will never gain sovereignity and therefore never existed in the first place. In short might makes right. If you don't follow the rules then you will be locked up or killed (in war). Your conflict seeking moral values are incompatible with ours. It is only natural for a nation to engage in self defense for the purpose of self preservation. You can think whatever you like and we will punish you however we like, it's the only fair thing we can do.

by maeln 7y ago

Putting so little value in other people life is a mental illness. Its not a question of perception. Considering your intellectual / material property over someone life is being a sociopath.

goldenkey 7y ago

It totally is a question of perception and philosophy. Death is literally a part of life. We all die. The value of life is what you make of it. The fact that this arsonist got roasted himself shows his perspective on the idea of "precious bodies" in general. He was wronged, palgiarized, steamrolled by an idomitable corporation and had no recourse. Je expressed in through corporeal action. You may disagree with the morality of his actions but your assessment of mental illness is just a way to end any discussion about what life is worth when it comes to being traded for political action, injustice, change, etc. We all live for something. Everyone chooses what to live and die for unless circumstance chooses for them.

Razengan 7y ago
At what point would you draw the line over "killing for something?" How about religion? Voices in someone's head? What if they affected you or your loved ones? Will you still laud their ""principles""?
maeln 7y ago
Society don't really care about you philosophical reflection on life and death. If this man was in fact defrauded by the company, he could have gone to court to solve the issue. Him considering that committing a mass murder, killing and injuring many innocent, is justifiable for the plagiarism is a mental illness. Trying to spin the conversation around philosophy and moral views to justify a mass murder is useless and seriously worrying about your own mental state and moral compass.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  There's no guarantee justice is upheld in court. Remember Dirty Harry? Most likely the legal route was already tried.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger. If one's morals justifies one to kill when one's own life or others' lives are not in danger, then they are mentally ill by our society's definition. Of course, mental illness being defined as holding behavior, emotional, or experience structures that deviate from the norm such that the person cannot function within their society in a productive manner. I think you'd be fascinated by the twists of someone with a personality disorder or someone on the schizophrenia spectrum. If someone claims they are god, or claims they are a wolf, and thus justified by self-definition of predator to predate on other humans, are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy?
- Aeolun 7y ago
  > Are they mentally ill or do they have a different philosophy? By the discussed points I would have to say it’s both. It’s certainly a different philosophy, but it would most definitely be classified as mentally ill.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    The rhetoric I'm responding to discusses them as if they are mutually exclusive. I'm trying to respond that different philosophies can, in fact, be sick ones.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "The people dead did not choose to die. They were killed by someone. And that person killed people and intended to kill people. By our society's definition, this person is mentally ill- they are ill because they have decided to kill people when their own life is not in imminent danger." I guess all those soldiers who invaded Iraq, for example, were mentally ill, as were the politicians who ordered them to. As were all those involved in the many other invasions of other countries when they themselves weren't in any imminent danger. Same goes for guards who shoot to kill escaping prisoners and police who shoot to kill people to keep them from killing others while their own lives are not in danger. Then there are executioners who legally kill people sentenced to death by a court of law. All of these people must be mentally ill, by your definition. You should distinguish your definition from society's definition, because by society's definition all of these people are not mentally ill. In fact, society often rewards them with honors and praise, calling them heroes or at least paying them for their work and legally protecting them from prosecution for the killing they do. The suggestion to lock up such people in mental institutions because they're "mentally ill" would be considered laughable, insulting, and not worthy of serious consideration by the vast majority of society. All of this is not to say that any of the above are morally equivalent to the killings that were perpetrated in this tragedy, nor is this to claim that the perpetrator is not mentally ill (it's for psychologists to decide that), but if the perpetrator is mentally ill then they can't be branded as such merely because they "killed people and intended to kill people.. when their own life is not in imminent danger" without also branding as mentally ill all those mentioned above.
overthemoon 7y ago
The key thing people are misunderstanding about this issue is that not all points of view/ideologies/worldviews are morally neutral. The reasoning goes: Since no one could rationally choose to harm another person, there must be some pathological reason he chose to harm someone. But it's basically and simply true that people do things in their right minds all the time that lead to suffering. OP's point is that pathologizing behavior you don't like cuts off all reasoning about it. John Brown killed people, but was he mentally ill? What about US soldiers in Afghanistan? Put another way, there are plenty of smart white supremacists. They're not all toothless knuckle dragging illiterates. Some are highly educated. It's possible to do bad things not due to a defect in education or mental illness, but through moral deficiency. People in their right minds do evil things.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Thriptic 7y ago
I'm not going to acknowledge the legitimacy of his motives because it's what he wants. He wants to be viewed as a martyr and to have his grievances heard and discussed, but killing 20+ people over stealing some IP (and not even a life changing innovation but a fucking manga) is categorically unacceptable in any society and is a disgusting act. Therefore, I will not even acknowledge that he has rational motives; he will be considered insane and disregarded as a fool, and I will move on without paying him or his "grand gesture" any mind. This is the ultimate punishment for an angry idealist who is demanding to be heard.
imtringued 7y ago
You seem to miss the point. Japan is a sovereign nation that has managed to protect itself for centuries. If someone ignores the justice system of that sovereign nation and uses his own justice system then he is threatening the sovereignity of the nation. The primary way nations defend themselves is through war and violence. Everyone can found their own nation, even on the grounds of an existing one. This is how countries have managed to declare independence for all of human history. A new nation that cannot defend itself will never gain sovereignity and therefore never existed in the first place. In short might makes right. If you don't follow the rules then you will be locked up or killed (in war). Your conflict seeking moral values are incompatible with ours. It is only natural for a nation to engage in self defense for the purpose of self preservation. You can think whatever you like and we will punish you however we like, it's the only fair thing we can do.