3 ms·

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 wa

by 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.

by s9w 7y ago

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.