You're pretty much arguing my point because you fail to understand what you are reading. I am not arguing they are predictable or rational.
You are making a prediction about psychopaths, in the logic of if X then Y. I will demonstrate, part X is underlined, part Y is bolded.
I'm arguing that they could see someone kill others and be inspired by those crimes to commit theirs, in an effort to become just as famous, to go down in history.
Psychosis causes of a psychotic’s behavior first and foremost. Anything could be seen as a justification by a psychotic because their cognition is warped. The wanton for harm and the behaviors associated with it is present since childhood.
Except it has been shown that school shootings were on the decline before Columbine, and on the rise after Columbine, and still are. In fact, mass shootings are still becoming more common. Now, you'll likely still argue with this, but when something is going one way, and then something happens and the trend reverses, it is the most logical thing to say that the happening is what caused it.
Which, you know, is exactly what you just showed them saying. So, you literally just posted information that shows they were inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer to argue that people will not be inspired by the publicity and fame of another killer. Is there even an actual name for arguing for your opponent on accident?
Ignoring primary sources in favor of inference is not how research is conducted. Re read what I quoted, I will make it easier just the parts bolded:
though Eric discussed topping Oklahoma City, so they may have been planning to echo that anniversary, as Tim McVeigh had done with Waco.
Inference, the usage of “so they may have.”
Oklahoma City was a one-note performance: McVeigh set his timer and walked away; he didn't even see his spectacle unfold. Eric dreamed much bigger than that.
"it'll be like the LA riots, the oklahoma bombing, WWII, vietnam, duke and doom all mixed together. maybe we will even start a little rebellion or revolution to fuck things up as much as we can. i want to leave a lasting impression on the world."
If the mention of Oklahoma in their journal is to count as evidence of inspiration, what disqualifies the LA Riots, WWII, Vietnam, Duke and Doom? Each of them were equal in Eric’s psychotic mind.
Difference in methodology, tell me do copycats use different methods?
I never called them copycats. In fact, I made a point to say these people aren't copycats. They're inspired. As in, they aren't looking to mimic the crime, but the result, and may even desire to top it. Additionally, they're still showing the number one point I'm making, which you refuse to address. As he said, he "want[ed] to leave a lasting impression on the world". He wanted to be remembered for this, and famous for this. He knew that killing people would make him famous. Someone explain to me how you get famous in the 1990s without the media, because I'd certainly like to know it.
Yep, kids, people with a decade of training and decades of experience cannot speak from their expert position on the human mind. If they don't have 100% proof, it's bullshit, even if they have researched the criminal mind for decades. Thank you for insulting an entire field that saves thousands of lives and saying that all their research and knowledge is bullshit.
Tell me, what is the difference between correlation and causality? Take a guess which one needs to be established to determine if one event causes the other.
It cannot be established 100%, obviously, because he's dead. However, if the experts on a subject speak on the subject, their opinion counts more than a random person on the internet. The experts have spoken, and they disagree with you. They are far more knowledgeable than you on this. We don't like it when fundies try to argue with scientists on things they don't understand, and I doubt you're nearly as educated in psychology as the American Psychological Association, so please don't do the exact same thing that the fundies do when they argue with biologists, geneticists, archeologists and geologists.
One work shows one aspect. The total works of a society show many, many aspects. And, no personal bias, I'm simply pointing out that there are characters written to be less attractive, and even then, people increase their attractiveness for adaptations. Fairy tales, myths and fiction all tend to have some sort of message in them, even if it's minor. They are all stories that reflect their society's viewpoints. Just because one is old and one is new doesn't mean they're unrelated.
Good grief qualify that they mutate according to a cultural framework in a time frame. The message and interpretation changes via such. To ignore such is to ignore the history of the work.
I'm not saying the message of a work mutates to the timeframe it's told. I'm saying a work reflects the mindset of the timeframe it is from.
No, it really isn't. You keep using those terms, but you don't understand them. Argumentum Ad Populum makes the fact that something is popular as a reason it is good, and should be popular. I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular. I do not say it is good or should be.
The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim.
Okay, let's try putting this into different words. Their conclusion is that he is innocent, or at least, a martyr, or someone to be inspired by. I am not arguing for their conclusion. In fact, I am opposed to their conclusion. I am saying that it is dangerous to give them someone they can see that way, but I think that they are wrong. I am arguing that although it is popular, it is wrong. That is not Argumentum Ad Populum.
Additionally, this is not circular reasoning. Let's just go with the classic example: The Bible. To Christians, The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. We know this because it says it is the Word of God. We know this is true because the Bible is true. The Bible is true because it is the Word of God. That is circular reasoning.
I am saying that because something is popular, it can get more popular.
Tell me, how is the aspect of popular not elliptical?
Because, I am not arguing that he is getting popular by being popular. I am arguing that, because he has gotten popular, trends can continue and he can become more popular, not because he is popular, but for the same reasons he got popular with the first group.