An appeal to general consensus and definition by crowdsourcing is inherently anti-scientific.
kill a bunch of random people and then themselves for no good reason is mentally ill
I mean, clearly the scientists and doctors who study these things didn’t draw that conclusion.
Being in a bad mental state is not, by any definition, an equivalent to being mentally ill. Mental illnesses are particular things, not a general blanket attribute for that person being “different from us” and non-standard.
And in this specific case, she was not a particularity stable individual.
Alright? I already said that some cases certainly involve mental illness. Your anecdotal pointing out won’t change the statistics and studies, though: those are a minority of cases and generally incidental.
But you have demonstrated for all of us scapegoating in action: your entire comment disregards science and evidence-based assessment for an anecdotal definition based on a sense of normalcy that allows us to say, “Fundamentally, those people are just different from us. Normal people wouldn’t do that.”
An appeal to general consensus and definition by crowdsourcing is inherently anti-scientific.
I mean, clearly the scientists and doctors who study these things didn’t draw that conclusion.
Being in a bad mental state is not, by any definition, an equivalent to being mentally ill. Mental illnesses are particular things, not a general blanket attribute for that person being “different from us” and non-standard.
Alright? I already said that some cases certainly involve mental illness. Your anecdotal pointing out won’t change the statistics and studies, though: those are a minority of cases and generally incidental.
But you have demonstrated for all of us scapegoating in action: your entire comment disregards science and evidence-based assessment for an anecdotal definition based on a sense of normalcy that allows us to say, “Fundamentally, those people are just different from us. Normal people wouldn’t do that.”
It isn’t helpful, though.