3 ms·

>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 s

>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.
  - s9w 7y ago
    My reasoning was grossly oversimplified - I talked about three major crimes in one sentence. Would you say that every crime is either a "rational" crime (if I don't do this, my child dies) or done by someone crazy? If so, I understand the heavy resistance of you and others here.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  You're assuming that the mass murdering arsonist who says that he was robbed was actually robbed. You should instead seriously consider the possibility that he's insane and his claim is factually incorrect.
mruts 7y ago
I've met very few rational and healthy people in my entire life. Everyone has some problem, and everyone can be pushed to do seemingly crazy things. By your definition, literally the entire human race is mentally ill. And if that is the case, then the word has no meaning.
- lunchables 7y ago
  That's really just reductio ad absurdum. I would not burn down a building if someone stole my work, would you?
  - mruts 7y ago
    reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly logical syllogism. I guess it depends on how angry I was? Would you kill someone who slept with your wife? Regardless of your answer, it would be absurd to call everyone who did crazy. In fact, courts never do.

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.
- s9w 7y ago
  My reasoning was grossly oversimplified - I talked about three major crimes in one sentence. Would you say that every crime is either a "rational" crime (if I don't do this, my child dies) or done by someone crazy? If so, I understand the heavy resistance of you and others here.
darkpuma 7y ago
You're assuming that the mass murdering arsonist who says that he was robbed was actually robbed. You should instead seriously consider the possibility that he's insane and his claim is factually incorrect.

mruts 7y ago

I've met very few rational and healthy people in my entire life. Everyone has some problem, and everyone can be pushed to do seemingly crazy things. By your definition, literally the entire human race is mentally ill. And if that is the case, then the word has no meaning.

lunchables 7y ago
That's really just reductio ad absurdum. I would not burn down a building if someone stole my work, would you?
- mruts 7y ago
  reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly logical syllogism. I guess it depends on how angry I was? Would you kill someone who slept with your wife? Regardless of your answer, it would be absurd to call everyone who did crazy. In fact, courts never do.