Jeremyhfht
Registered Senior Member
You actually refuse to see that you're KO'ed. By my reality, I've won this argument a number of pages ago.
So nice to know your maturity is so great that you view discussions as win/lose.
And I hope the irony of the above statement isn't lost on you. If you look at this whole argument from my reality, you cannot come to any other conclusion that you, Jeremy, are debating from a futile position.
baseless assertion, you don't even understand my stance. And your continual comments prove it.
Clearly then, this whole "judge only by the other person's reality" is a farce. Of course "crazy people don't know they're crazy". It is up to us rational people to judge by sanity yardsticks, so that we can attempt to treat irrational folk.
The saying "crazy people don't know they're crazy" is a double edged sword. As you don't know if you're crazy or not, either.
There's also a problem with assuming sanity/rationality to begin with when you're speaking of a subjective reference frame. You might consider it irrational to go on rampage, and insane. While at the same time, others could easily rationalize it given his past history.
Still yet, the question of sanity simply has to do with the chosen reference frame. You might call him "insane" for killing, or you could call him sane on the basis that his actions were justified. And it was the only plausible reaction given his personality and history (which of course relies on further generalizations).
This was pretty easy to find thru Google. The article is on Newswire as well. Of course we realise catalysts, but as Wong says Cho was "pushed over the edge" (irrational).
Note how "irrational" was something you added. Not what the professional said. Being pushed over the edge emotionally does not equal irrationality, it merely equals being unable to handle the built up emotional stress. Which has little to do with how logical your actions are.
If you consider his situation, where everyone has long since been against you (this guy obviously had nobody to support him), it's a short skip and jump away from rationalizing that people deserve to die for their ignorance. This is not irrational, as it's based on a premise that has physical basis depending on who you are.
an irrational assertion would be optimistic. "oh well, I'll be very popular/whatever later in life", as nobody tends to rise from that situation. This is, partly, the reason why you can't apply your own subjective rationality to his. As yours has an entirely different premise. Different premise, different results, and different variables to consider.
And, the 'appeal to authority' claim only works if the expert simply asserts without assessment or proof that can't be followed by colleagues or readers. Demonizing the media also does not remove the truth from the fact that Cho was clearly irrational.
Note the fact that the professional did not call him irrational. I mentioned appeal to authority since no link was provided (until now), and the poster assumed accuracy because it was a professional.
"There can be no justification for the evil of mass killing" Wong says, and I agree; how can shooting 32 defenseless people ever be a rational decision to anyone?
This is actually where I must call Wong irrational. He did not make that assertion based on logic or psychology, he made it based on emotional preference.
This is why it's a bad idea to put full faith into "experts", as they don't always throw in factual claims, as much as they want to throw in emotional ones. I'd also like to add that, had he not, the media probably would have eaten him alive. It'd be an impossible situation either way.
As for your question, I answered it above regarding the subjectivity of logic based on the premise.
I completely understand, Jeremy, that you purport that Cho's state of mind would have led him to believe that he was sane. However, the question is "Was Cho's decision rational or irrational?" The question is not "Did Cho think he was rational or irrational?"
Had you read my prior posts to full extent, you'd know that I was objecting to those that voted "irrational" on the premise that it was irrational to do so.
I was not answering questions.
You have wasted time answering the wrong question.
Perhaps you've wasted your time reading my posts incorrectly.