[1stop]

You are ascribing your own situation to the problem and pretending it is the same.

Everyone thinks they are completely reasonable, but the fact is our brain convinces us we are even when we are not.

Unless you've actually been someone else, how can you know what it is like?

[ZenPro]

Just to be clear; your assertion is that no human being make a reasonable or educated guess about their behaviour in a situation that is unfamiliar?

That is your assertion?...because it is nonsense if it is. As humans we make effective, educated guesses about unfamiliar scenarios all of the time.

I also don't physically need to be charged with wire fraud to know that I would not take my own life over it leaving behind my children. Children, if convicted today, I would be able to see again before Christmas.

However - if you want to get [really] meta over the subject then your logic defeats itself.

Unless you have actually been me how can you know that I am not completely accurate in my assessment of myself?

Your stated position has rendered you unable to disagree with me. Since you are not me.

[1stop]

The irony of this complete garble of a comment trying to convince people that we are always reasonable is quite amazing.

Have you done that on purpose?

Anyway, in the off chance you aren't intending to do an awesome display of irony:

- People can be reasonable, but they are bad at knowing when they are and aren't.

- Empathy is not applying someones situation to yourself, but instead applying yourself to someones situation (This is non-commutative).

- Empathy can help reason but is not required by it.

I'm not really suggesting anything controversial so I'm surprised at your adversarial responses. It's almost like we are just stuck in a "Someone is wrong on the internet" loop here.

[ZenPro]

So, ultimately, your assertion is that people cannot make educated guesses about their behaviour in unfamiliar situations?

OK. The world is awash with people receiving a criminal sentencing and then killing themselves. It's unfortunate we don't have any data whatsoever to disprove that...

Well done, Sir. You win the internet today. Aaron Schwarz taking his own life instead of facing a maximum of 6 months in prison is completely normal.

[1stop]

> So, ultimately, your assertion is that people cannot make educated guesses about their behaviour in unfamiliar situations?

I didn't say that at all, but you do love a strawman don't you.

> Aaron Schwarz taking his own life instead of facing a maximum of 6 months in prison is completely normal.

Plea bargain of 6 months + felony charge was turned down. He was facing ~35 years + felony charge. But don't let the facts stop your rightousness ;-)

> It's unfortunate we don't have any data whatsoever to disprove that...

But we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Psychosocial_states

You'll note that: Hopelessness, loss of pleasure, depression and anxiousness all increase the likelihood of suicide. It's pretty reasonable for us to assume Aaron was feeling at least one of those. Again, lets not let fact or data get in the way of your "informed" opinion.

[ZenPro]

Oh dear -

1. Misunderstanding of felony charges are stated and subsequently sentenced. Check.

2. Misunderstanding of compared suicide rates to criminal sentencing. Check.

3. Comnplete misreading of my sarcasm reagrding lack of data. Check.

You are just emabrassing yourself, honestly.

You could have every data point in the world suggesting the factors that contribute to suicidal feeling.

None of it proves criminal sentencing results in the normative behaviour of suicide. Again we are returning to common sense, we know that criminals are not killing themselves on masse.

This is getting stupid now. You are clearly not trolling and genuinely think you are on to something.

Suicide is not normal neither is it normal for anyone to kill themselves in response to the potential of being found guilty.

It happens, but it is not normal.

Please feel free to continue arguing. It is interesting to watch someone logically eat their own argument.

[1stop]

Please explain 1. He was facing 35 years (if he lost) and would be labeled a felon losing his right to vote and aspirations of working in politics. How is that misunderstood?

Other than being a smug cunt, you haven't actually said anything that refuted what I said. I've given you data and reason to explain why someone would kill themselves in a similar situation but you are caught up on your own definition of normal (being 50.1%) which I also refuted earlier. So I'm going to go with my earlier statement: You are just a smug cunt, and you enjoy it.

I wasn't trolling no, but I was/am clearly being trolled. Well done.