Was Cho Seung-hui decision rational or irrational?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by draqon, Apr 19, 2007.


Was Cho Seung-hui's decision rational or irrational?

  1. rational

  2. irrational

  1. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Right. When the immature mind cannot refute the truth, it resorts to name-calling and obscenities. Really showing your lack of understanding here.

    When you get to college you'll find out exactly what I'm talking about. Your little imaginary house of cards will crash harder than you can ever visualize now. They are going to shove the REAL definitions down your throat and show you how stupid the ones you've made up (and presented here) really are.

    Some day, you'll be forced to grow up - like it or not (and you won't like it).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Need I quote your repeated name-callings, such as that of "immature" and such?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Need I also state the obvious, that it was in jest and I did address your statement?

    Need I also mention how you've repeatedly failed to mention the supposed definitions I've "made up"?

    Oh, by the way, since you know so much about me even though you've barely read any posts I've made, you must be quite the avid learner. I mean, who else could possibly claim working knowledge of anothers mental state in such a situation? All hail you, for your knowledge is forever.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for that acknowledgement.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "Immature" isn't name calling - it's a normal level in the progression of development and that is where you currenty are. You'll improve considerably once you reach 30.

    I've mentioned your "made up" definitions (as have several others here) so MANY times I can't even count them. Your version "irrational" is the worst of them all!!!!!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Singularity Banned Banned

    I think there should be more such shooting so that people become aware that its not good to only think about themselves but its also in their interest to think about others living around them.

    "If i can suck blood then its because i am more capable hence" this attitude must go.
  8. Enterprise-D I'm back! Warp 8 Mr. Worf! Registered Senior Member

    Then your logic is inaccurate.

    Rationality is logic based. Irrationality is emotive. Cho shot at people that he perceived as being callous, greedy etc, especially insofar as interactions with him. These are all clearly emotive drivers.

    I think we've done this thread to death now? Sorry about my own late post...
  9. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    No apology necessary, information is still coming to light. Jere-whatizname is not thinking either logical or within the bounds of recognized psychology - he simply makes up his rules as he goes along. And all the others who thought this madman acted rationally are totally incorrect also.

    Here's a news item that was just released today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18525242/

    It states that a judge, specially trained and selected to hear mental cases, ruled that Cho was "dangerously mentally ill 2 years before the shooting" and was ordered to receive treatment.

    This is NOT a ruling that judges hand down lightly, there has to be conclusive evidence provided to warrant it. And no mater how ANYONE wants to define it, someone who is "dangerously mentally ill" is hardly in possession of a rational mind. It was clear that he presented a danger to himself and others two years ago but the system totally failed and allowed him to slip through the cracks.

    But that latter part is not the point of this post - the man was insane and irrational. Logic and psychology permit NO other alternative.
  10. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    You idiot, he's helping the killers, and to top it all off he killed himself.
    How is that fighting back? How is he any better than any other person who wants to kill random people they don't know?

    Now, you might be right that overall society does not value life, and does not think killing is bad, but how the hell can you come to the conclusion, that the way to make life more valueable is to violently kill even more random people?

    Let's assume you aren't human, take all your political and psychological knowledge out of this picture. What behavior did Cho do? What behavior does Cho represent?

    From a completely outsider perspective, it's not society that is killing Cho in specific, it's society that is killing itself. Humans are their own worst enemy, and this is not going to change just because you shoot random people. You cannot prevent a bad behavior, by adopting that behavior. Just like you cannot heal a gunshot wound by killing the person to "ease their pain".

    Sure society is fucked up, people are fucked up, but regardless, they are still our people. So once again, how is commiting suicide, "fighting back"?

    Think of it this way, if you don't care about this species, or your family, or your country, or God, then why the hell do you care what these people do to each other? Even if you don't care about humans at all, it does not change the fact that it's completely irrational to kill random people and commit suicide. And just saying that because a lot of other people are irrational and want to shoot a lot of random people too, makes it somehow better that Cho did it, I don't see how that makes it any different.

    This behavior represents the suicidal side of human nature. The "I hate myself and everyone else" side of human nature. Point is, it's an emotion, and by that definition it's irrational.
  11. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    No, the solution is, if you don't want all these serial killers, stop having kids.
    You don't produce shooters when you don't keep having all these babies who hate themselves and their families.

    Why should society adapt to the emotions of a few individuals who decide to hate society and everyone in it? Society should adapt these individuals to it, and if we cannot manage our people then we have too many.

    As I see it, if you have unlimited population growth, you have unlimited aggression. If you have unlimited population growth, you have unlimited hatred. If you have unlimited population growth, you have unlimited violence.

    You think we will have less war when we have more people stuck in densely populated areas? You think people will ever love each other? People will always be insane, crazy, and violent. People will always be like this mainly because we keep creating people like this, and you cannot blame "society" for not caring about people, you can blame parents, you can blame friends, you can blame the individual who actually hates the world, but you cannot blame systems for emotions that individuals feel because a system is built up of laws not emotions.

    The main problem we have is we don't use reason anymore in decision making. Everyone wants to do what feels good. Well if thats the case you will always have a percentage of people who feel like killing lots of random people. We call them serial killers, these people always exist. You also have rapists, you have people who do whatever feels good with no ability to reason whatsoever.

    Does this make it right? No! Sometimes a person has to do what feels bad because it's RIGHT, ETHICAL, RATIONAL, REASONABLE. Laws are supposed to be designed by reasonable minds to manage the passionate masses.

    When you remove all emotion from the picture and you just have reason, none of this suidial self defeating behavior makes sense. It's never good for a society to slaughter students. If society decides that we have too many people, then the answer is to have less children. Violence really has nothing to do with it. People who are violent are violent because it feels good, not because it serves any rational function.

    If you want to be rational, it's most rational to value human life. And it's most rational to protect human life. Most humans do not protect their species, society, etc and so most humans are simply irrational, including Cho. Our emotions are killing us, not "society". It's our lack of self control that is causing us pain. The rapist who cannot control himself rapes. The serial killer who cannot control himself, serially kills. The thief who cannot control himself, continues to steal. These are problems which all stem from a lack of self control, and the philosophy is the hedonist philosophy of "if it feels good, do it, fuck the consequences."

    If everyone were to do what they feel, in a land with no reason thus no formal laws, we'd live in a society filled with people like Cho, randomly killing people over arguements, and we'd be in a state of constant and never ending war. The war would be for your survival, and your neighbors, even your family members, may be your enemy. It's called the war of all against all, and the whole basis for a societies existence is based on a reasonable contract by which we agree to cooperate with each other. We agree to cooperate not because we like each other, but because we love ourselves, our society, and our families, and we know that it's best for our security, to follow the law.

    People follow the law because people do not want to live in a society of lawlessness, anarchy, and when people decide to kill random people for no reason, completely ignoring the laws, ethics, and consequences, just because they feel like it, that promotes anarchy. If enough people start doing that, people will start to ignore the laws, taking the law into their own hands, and this is bad for everyone.

    All we have to co-exist without mutual self destruction is laws. The only thing protecting us is our laws. If you hate society, then you must love anarchy, and if you love anararchy then you are a social darwinist. A social darwinist believes in every man, women, child, for his or herself, and does not care about the species, the human race, the country, etc. How can you care if it's social darwinism? However if you hate life, society, and everyone then social darwinism makes sense, and then maybe anarchy begins to make sense.

    Things are as bad as they are, with the violence, because reasonable people are outnumbered. The masses don't really understand the value of laws, and take it for granted that the police or some other person with the gun will always be there to protect them. But without laws theres no one to protect you, or anyone, theres just absolute chaos. First people will start looting and robbing each other. Then people will get access to guns, and all hell will break lose once they realize they can do whatever the hell they want and no police will arrest them. The police will be busy protecting their family and their friends with their guns, however the majority of people will either be killing each other, or hiding, or being raped and murdered, or robbed, or murdering, robbing and raping others, and in all of this chaos, eventually leaders will come along and create an absolute dictatorship where the only law left will be to obey the guy with the most guns and biggest army.

    People just don't know how good they have it right now.
    Last edited: May 19, 2007
  12. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    You don't understand human nature. The majority of people will never care about other people. The people who care about people already do and don't need to see endless shootings and violence to wake up to that.

    So the people who don't give a shit about people, will see shootings like this as justifying their own hatred. The people who do give a shit about people will be disgusted and say it's wrong, but won't do anything to stop violence at the source, and so hatred will increase along with disgust and fear.

    A lot of people, the best idea they can come up with to deal with violence is to hide it from the children. People assume that if violence is not seen on TV anymore, that it will go away.

    This is like thinking crime will go away if we stop reporting it. This is like saying war will go away if we stop filming war documentaries. This is like saying, that if we just stop paying attention to violence, that it will go away.

    It doesnt go away because it's a part of human nature, it wont go away until we accept that violence is as innate as any other instinct that humans have. And only then will we be able to properly deal with violence, once we see that violence is just innate, some people are just going to be more violent than others, and once we realize that we have to look inward and solve our problems, thats when we will begin to find solutions.

    Anger management, psychopharmacology, and figuring out how to properly regulate brain chemistry is a start. Think of it like this, the natural way that tribal people handled this was by smoking marijuana, how did it work? It altered brain chemistry, the result? Better diplomacy, less violence.

    This kid Cho, had abnormal brain chemistry, something in his brain allowed for him to become suicidal, and he also had something in his brain that allowed him to hate. Cho needed help.

    The only way we will ever heal ourselves is to heal ourselves. Cho needed more than just a hug, he needed help, and if our current treatments are not good enough, we need to invent new treatments for people who are deemed harmful to themselves and others. This guy was deemed harmful to himself and others so why do we not have the authority to make him go through some sort of threatment before allowing him to enter the campus again? If he attempted suicide in the past, and if he had a history of this and really was in a hospital over this, shouldnt he have been on meds?
  13. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Typical excuses. Cho was not living in poverty in some third world country. So he did not fit in? So?

    He was bullied? So?

    I bet most of the people on sci-forums were bullied and did not fit in, along with most of the people who spend time on internet forums in general. Using this as an excuse in my opinion is weak.

    The only way to fit in, in this society or any other, is by being fake. If you are good at being fake, lying, and changing yourself to match the people you are around, then you'll fit in more, and be bullied less, but what does this have to do with anything?

    If you love yourself then why would it matter if anyone ever accepts you?
  14. Singularity Banned Banned

    The people who are fed by media and think that they should always do what they want instead of what they are supposed to do should be killed all the time this way by all the victims that are result of their ignorance and irresponsibility towards society they live in.

    So u want him have made a list first and shoot worst of the people one by one ?

    Do u think military will allow that ?


    The idea is to reduce such selfish population a kind of memetic cleansing. So if they all kill me, lets go down by taking few of them out.

    Who want to rot in prison for the rest of the life and take the torture of long legal proceedings for years. For what ?

    Thats a wrong assumption.

    Cant u see the diference ?

    I wont be witting this to u if he hadn't done it. So more such killings, the better solution for the society since titan minds like mine would be thinking about it and knowing the rationality behind it. And the changes required to avoid such incident in the future.

    Wrong assumption again.
  15. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

  16. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

    Aww, this isn't fair. Why is it all of the fanatic Illuminati people get the infractions, and I've not even gotten one throughout all of my sarcasm?

    And yay, the witch is dead.
  17. draqon Banned Banned

    because u only Posted less than 400 times...
  18. Jeremyhfht Registered Senior Member

  19. Enterprise-D I'm back! Warp 8 Mr. Worf! Registered Senior Member

    People SHOULD do what they want. However, with the caveat that what you want does not infringe on the rights of others. If it means that they have three Benzes and appear to be haughty and superficial that's their prerogative. Doesn't affect others' rights in the least.

    Had 1. Cho gotten the correct treatment and 2. responded logically to perceived social oppression, no innocent people would have needed to die.

    We'd rather he shot no-one. But ironically, making a list and checking it twice is definitely a military supported action. It's called strategic planning.

    ...for his actions.

    Hitler called his actions 'cleansing'...maybe he felt that the Jews were selfish? Why bring him up? Simple...there's no way an individual, no matter what post he may be elected to can deign himself wise enough to figure out what this social 'cleansing' is.

    How does a 23 year old student go about evaluating the worth of anyone?
    How does one individual decide the parameters of a "memetic cleansing"?

    In other words Singularity, blow it out your backside, and grow up a little.

    To do the responsible thing and answer for his socially defined criminal activity

    My don't we have an inflated opinion about ourselves? Far be it from the psychologists and their mere mortal minds to determine him irrational from their years of training and experience. Far be it from them and the associated specialists (social workers, teachers, law enforcement) to come up with the changes themselves.

    You need not make yourself believe insanity a rational response to figure out the reason behind such a drastic response as Cho's. And judging an action as irrational, my dear Singularity, does not mean that preventative measures will be ignored. Far from it...these actions are the ones that prompt quick and innovative solutions.

Share This Page