You don't have to condone their murderous actions but to wilfully ignore the causes is pretty callous especially when the system will produce more of them because the root causes aren't being addressed.
Idgaf about the causes of certain people whose bad acts have greater impact than their good ideas. And I definitely don't fret over being "callous" with respect to a dead man who killed a few people, injured more, and reasonably terrified millions.
Full disagree.
We need to separate good parts from lunacy.
I am 110% against shit like "Well that dude was evil in some way, so all he said is null and void".
I am fairly sure most humans are severely flawed, and some of us are just missing the self-control/inhibiting parts
I'm pretty sure I've seen you condemn and dismiss people for having a lack of self-control. But I look forward to hearing you echo this for less smart idiots who do bad or dumb things, or who refuse to improve their lives/perspectives.
, but they might have something else to offer.
Mathematical genius is extremely rare and highly valuable.
His bombs were the most impactful thing he ever did. Valueless. Whatever good he may have had to offer the world he squandered and mocked. Being a genius is wonderful, but pragmatically useless if nothing good is done with it. One might even say that an additional sin is squandering aptitude, genius, and talent.
I've known a lot of truly brilliant people. Their quality and human value depends on more than their intellect. Brilliance isn't a moral carte blanche to be a shithead. Many brilliant people have been shitheads, and I do look past a fair amount of it, but Ted K. ultimately contributed nothing good to the world, and certainly nothing that outweighed his other actions. And see again
my comment about squandering talent. Spitting in God's eye, as they say, really.
Once the spirits calm down, smart people need to analyze things detached from these emotions.
If you mean me, I've got no emotion about the man. He was a negative-value human being, on balance, that's all.
OK, I'll give him back a half a point, because he was clearly mentally very unwell and delusional, and as such, perhaps he was so addled he wasn't in full control.
None's perfect. He compensated in other ways.
Which ways? How are we improved by his existence? Whose lives did he save? Because he ruined a bunch of them.
It's an annoying trait that people have and it's in the same vein as libtards cancelling concepts because of association.
Meh. People do that, but same outcomes don't necessarily mean same thought process. As I noted above, I (personally) enjoy and appreciate genius, even when that genius person has done dicey or bad things. There are many geniuses in their fields or generally who do bad things, even unrepentantly, but the worthwhile ones are the ones who actually contributed something. Picasso was a prick, for example, but net-net it honestly doesn't interfere with my appreciation and admiration of what he gave the world.
I mean, his political views don't align with mine but he's written some stuff that he's written is insightful:
Fair observation of his, but too broad by far. And though I doubt he meant it literally and in every single case, dummies will pick it up and try to do just that, because they don't understand context, just slogans.