3 ms·

Three people in here immediately blamed this on mental illness/mental health. That feels like such a strange reaction and oversimplification to this. If what I

by s9w 7y ago

Three people in here immediately blamed this on mental illness/mental health. That feels like such a strange reaction and oversimplification to this. If what I read is true: The work of the person who did this did get his work stolen and maybe as a consequence missed out on a lot of money. Then doing something like this might be quite an overreaction, but is at least in the realm of understandable, no? Revenge is in human nature.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago
It's not actually; whatever financial damage the perpetrator suffered is trivial compared to the loss of human life. I mean he could've sued them instead. Or publically call them out on it. Instead he went for the nuclear option and went on a killing spree. This is morally abject and I can't believe you're even suggesting it might be a fair action.
- s9w 7y ago
  I literally called it an overreaction. But there is a very strong motivation for this. It's not like it came out of nowhere - which calling him mentally ill somewhat suggests. Who knows how big the financial damage was - maybe he lost his marriage or whatever.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    I just don’t think overreaction covers this. Even if there is no more appropriate word in the English language, it is still incorrect. Having your family killed gives you a strong motivation. Losing out on a bunch of money? That doesn’t even come close to being anything worth killing over. Let alone mass-murder.
    - s9w 7y ago
      If he gets in front of a court, his stolen work will literally be called a motive. And that's all I'm saying. The rest is just about how much of an overreaction this was. And it certainly was very much that - as I repeatedly said. That's liteally what an overreaction is.
  - Djvacto 7y ago
    Calling him mentally ill does not imply it came out of nowhere. It implies that his response to what was done to him was not reasonable, moral, or the reaction of what society considers mentally well. Mental instability can mean that something small is more likely to push someone much farther than it should.
izzydata 7y ago
It is a bit difficult to comprehend this kind of behavior without believing they are also mentally unstable. I expect most people regardless of how much they have been wronged wouldn't turn to killing dozens of innocent people. The attacker possibly believed they weren't innocent which to me makes it seem like he was mentally unstable. There is some disconnect between what he believes and reality.
lunchables 7y ago
>might be quite an overreaction, but is at least in the realm of understandable, no? You think it is "understandable" to burn down a building because someone stole your work? If someone did that I would call them "crazy". I definitely see "mental stability" or "mental health" being a root cause here. Rational, healthy people do not respond in that way. Call it "temporary insanity" if you want.
- s9w 7y ago
  Understanding the reasons for a crime does not excuse said crime, or say that you're ok with it. If someone robs a bank, I can understand the motivation: He wants money. If someone punches another, he might want to feel powerful. If someone rapes a woman he wants sex. And if someones believes that this company stole his money, I can understand his motivations to seek revenge. That does not mean it is right, just or something to look up to. But saying this is completely crazy is a bit naive IMO.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    There is a lot of ways to retaliate against a company that do not involve setting fire to a building with 70 people inside. This is pretty much the definition of crazy, though apparently not self destructive because they survived. I fully expect the death penalty if he doesn’t prematurely manage to commit suicide though.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    That is a gross simplification of criminal motives and you should strike the thought in it's entirety from your mind and re-evaluate it from first principals.
  - Djvacto 7y ago
    Some of your reasonings seem a bit simplified. If someone robs a bank, they might want money. Is it because they are trying to feed a starving family? Is their life being threatened due to gambling debts? Or do they just value the safety of others less than they would the money? And that is the only arguably victimless crime in your list of 3. A crime can be committed by a rational person (if I don't do this, my child dies), and it can be committed by someone who is not mentally well. I would argue that these, especially the last crime, are all crimes likely to be committed by someone who is not in a stable or healthy state of mind.
whenchamenia 7y ago
Its not money, its honor.

by s9w 7y ago

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

It's not actually; whatever financial damage the perpetrator suffered is trivial compared to the loss of human life. I mean he could've sued them instead. Or publically call them out on it. Instead he went for the nuclear option and went on a killing spree. This is morally abject and I can't believe you're even suggesting it might be a fair action.

s9w 7y ago
I literally called it an overreaction. But there is a very strong motivation for this. It's not like it came out of nowhere - which calling him mentally ill somewhat suggests. Who knows how big the financial damage was - maybe he lost his marriage or whatever.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  I just don’t think overreaction covers this. Even if there is no more appropriate word in the English language, it is still incorrect. Having your family killed gives you a strong motivation. Losing out on a bunch of money? That doesn’t even come close to being anything worth killing over. Let alone mass-murder.
  - s9w 7y ago
    If he gets in front of a court, his stolen work will literally be called a motive. And that's all I'm saying. The rest is just about how much of an overreaction this was. And it certainly was very much that - as I repeatedly said. That's liteally what an overreaction is.
- Djvacto 7y ago
  Calling him mentally ill does not imply it came out of nowhere. It implies that his response to what was done to him was not reasonable, moral, or the reaction of what society considers mentally well. Mental instability can mean that something small is more likely to push someone much farther than it should.

izzydata 7y ago

It is a bit difficult to comprehend this kind of behavior without believing they are also mentally unstable. I expect most people regardless of how much they have been wronged wouldn't turn to killing dozens of innocent people. The attacker possibly believed they weren't innocent which to me makes it seem like he was mentally unstable. There is some disconnect between what he believes and reality.

lunchables 7y ago

>might be quite an overreaction, but is at least in the realm of understandable, no? You think it is "understandable" to burn down a building because someone stole your work? If someone did that I would call them "crazy". I definitely see "mental stability" or "mental health" being a root cause here. Rational, healthy people do not respond in that way. Call it "temporary insanity" if you want.

s9w 7y ago
Understanding the reasons for a crime does not excuse said crime, or say that you're ok with it. If someone robs a bank, I can understand the motivation: He wants money. If someone punches another, he might want to feel powerful. If someone rapes a woman he wants sex. And if someones believes that this company stole his money, I can understand his motivations to seek revenge. That does not mean it is right, just or something to look up to. But saying this is completely crazy is a bit naive IMO.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  There is a lot of ways to retaliate against a company that do not involve setting fire to a building with 70 people inside. This is pretty much the definition of crazy, though apparently not self destructive because they survived. I fully expect the death penalty if he doesn’t prematurely manage to commit suicide though.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  That is a gross simplification of criminal motives and you should strike the thought in it's entirety from your mind and re-evaluate it from first principals.
- Djvacto 7y ago
  Some of your reasonings seem a bit simplified. If someone robs a bank, they might want money. Is it because they are trying to feed a starving family? Is their life being threatened due to gambling debts? Or do they just value the safety of others less than they would the money? And that is the only arguably victimless crime in your list of 3. A crime can be committed by a rational person (if I don't do this, my child dies), and it can be committed by someone who is not mentally well. I would argue that these, especially the last crime, are all crimes likely to be committed by someone who is not in a stable or healthy state of mind.

whenchamenia 7y ago

Its not money, its honor.