Was Cho Seung-hui decision rational or irrational?

So nice to know your maturity is so great that you view discussions as win/lose.

baseless assertion, you don't even understand my stance. And your continual comments prove it.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps you've wasted your time reading my posts incorrectly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The poll seems to illistrate something alarming.

If the rationals are correct then we we have a much larger cultural problem in America and perhaps globally. If Cho was rational are what can be described as rational and not under mental duress then the triggers for these events is not to be an isolated event.

The compound perplexity being...just how do we isolate these individuals if they are indeed "rationalL?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

we don't isolate individuals, we strive to make everyone around us happy and involved in life so that they do not dare think of such hideous actions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saquist, you almost reached an epiphany. Then you veared off into a tree. however I may have misunderstood you. So, if I may ask, clarify?

 

Saquist: I was alarmed when the votes for "rational" increased from zero. I became more alarmed when I realised that the votes are almost 50-50. It is clear to me that there are individuals who measure rationality via a different scale, probably an anti-gravity one.

Jeremy, I don't care what your original objection was. It was irrational to vote irrational? That sounds like the biggest crock I have ever heard.

Like I said before, us humans judge rationality by our own experience. To do otherwise would eliminate the definition of insanity. We can assume or presume that the shooter may have considered himself justified, however, to us more acclimatized and civilized beings, we know that Cho's decision was irrational. The entire sideline, if you will, that Cho was rational because he considered himself rational is completely useless to the poll question. It is akin to saying that my blue car is red because I think my blue car is red...when it is clear to the rest of the planet that the car is blue. Perspectives do not change facts.

 

Exactly. Jeremy claims to be studying psychology in college but I don't believe a word of it. Simply because the definitions he uses are the exact opposite of what's found in any course or text. Personally, I think he's just a fraud and a liar. And that's why I've ceased to have any interaction with him - I despise liars!!

 

Nice slithering of different wordings. We're talking about rationality. Not insanity.

I've already made my point about this. You're merely repeating yourself Ad Nauseum.

...so you basically say that it's a fact because the majority perceive it to be so?

In that case, if everyone here voted rational, then you'd be irrational for disagreeing.

This is ridiculous.

Definitions of...?

I did not say I was presently studying psychology in college. At present, I merely get my hands on whatever college books/websites available. In a short period (under a year or so) I will be going to college.

As do I. I've also a dirty little habit: I refuse to lie. This does not, however, prevent other people from putting words into my mouth.

 

I have to break my silence with you in order to point this out. Don't lie, eh? You dirty little liar!!! Making a misleading statement is EXACTLY the same as lying - or do you have a different definition of that also?!?!?

You said earlier, and I quote, "I am. I'm going to college to be a psychologist." You did NOT say, "I'm going to go to college..." Liar!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

While I should have clarified with "I will be" instead of "I'm", it makes little difference. A proper statement when you're already in college would be "I'm in college to be a psychologist". Going is future-tense in that context.

Similarly, allow me to reword my earlier statement: I refuse to lie purposefully.

 

Jeremy, I'd leave Read-Only alone (no need to reply to him). He's not arguing the topic.

 

Twisting words yet again in a effort to slither out of trouble! Syntax won't save you.

Wrong! It makes a BIG difference! Primarily because you made that earlier statement in a direct attempt to gain some credibility. And doing so under false pretenses certainly constitutes a purposeful lie.

And another reason it makes a difference is that you've not even BEGUN to formally study the basics of something in which you've clearly been substituting your own (rather than the accepted standard) definitions. Ugh!!!!

 

Now now, I was merely clarifying. I had full intentions to ignore further off-topic discussion.

Fear not, I know when to quit.

 

Fine then..."Like I said before, us humans judge rationality by our own experience. To do otherwise would eliminate the definition of irrationality."

I've corrected my statement. Deal with that.

Jeremy, there are many facts that are inescapabily true, regardless of the number of individuals that can or are willing to perceive them. One is that the car I currently own is blue! Another is that shooting 32 people and then killing yourself is irrational. Arguing from the shooter's perspective does not make him rational.

 

Oh for fuck...screw it, what I already wrote rebuts this. I'm not repeating myself.

 

In that case I'll have the last word.

Word.

 

NEVER!

Word!

 

Yeah, right! You just THINK you've caught some flack here - wait until you get into college. A few professors are going to fully enjoy screwing your head back on in the right direction!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Troll.

 

Nope, not trolling - just preparing you for the REAL world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are in for a huge shock when they attack your backward version of abnormal psychology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My point was that of Logic. Not Psychology. Learn the difference. I've made it clear repeatedly.

So instead of troll, I label you an asstroll. As so far my discussions with the better crop of those familiar with psychology do nothing but agree when I discuss abnormal psychology. As well as developmental psychology, sociology, and child psychology. I am fairly educated in these realms.

If I were to discuss it from psychology viewpoints I would make me a poor psychologist to venture into the realms of labels regarding ones mental intelligence when my job would be to address their mental state. Is it clear enough yet, or need I put it on a broken record?