|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's a fine assumption to make since that's what we are discussing. If we are discussing truly irrational killers, we would be discussing a type that we almost never encounter. They would be sufficiently insane that they don't even know their own preferences.
Ok.
And yet mental illness is basically the number one purported cause when referring to mass shootings. A mentally ill person cannot be thought of as rational. Do you agree with me on that stance?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
If we have to assume they are rational, then the mental illness and gun shooting relation kind of like shouldn't come up again, no? Agree/disagree? Being mindful that you cannot have a cake and eat it too
Originally Posted by wufwugy
About the quote of Greenspan, it's unfortunate he said that. Just yesterday I was reading academic literature that implies he spoke from a position of ignorance. Note that the claims I have made in other conversations we have had do not assume veracity in what Greenspan said. If what he said reflects what he believes, he was ignorant to believe that banks did not have distorted incentives created by Federal Reserve and Treasury policy such that they would rather take on more risk.
The unfortunate part isn't that he said it; the truly unfortunate part is that he allowed it all to happen. Under his watch. He, and 99.5% of the others involved, got nary a wrist slap. The fact that he said this is just an indicator as to the WHY, why it happened under his watch
|
Reply With Quote