ah, no.
You've equated my statement that different morals and ethics always involves killing
Some people think that homosexuality is not immoral. Others consider it immoral. Does that make one side or the other crazy? If you say so, than honestly, you frighten me. Yes, I insist that "different morals and ethics than the observer doesn't make the observed crazy" but I have *not* made the argument that no one is crazy, nor do I intend to. Nor does that follow from my arguments. That's *your* input, thank you. Nice straw man though.
No, a difference in morals and ethics does not mean a person is crazy, but that doesn't mean a crazy person can't have different morals and ethics.
No, there's no circular argument there. You simply need to demonstrate to me with more specific arguments. To take Skar's statement, is it "rampant murder?" seems to me it was more targeted. There's also the question of what motivates the murders. It's unquestionable that Kelsier hates nobles and thinks they're better off dead, but he isn't killing them willy nilly, nor is he systematically killing all of them. He's selecting targets in order to cause more damage than the killing itself in order to achieve a strategic advantage.
Sort of like killing enemy combatants in order to disable an advantage they have or maintain your own.
So maybe by your argument anyone in the military, or at least in a position of command regarding the military, is doing something abhorrant. I know that YOU, skar, definitely don't agree with that. The question then, is NOT is he killing them, but is he justified in killing them. I don't see that he's doing anything insane here by killing these people.
I like how not being convinced of something else makes me unreasonable in my arguments though. That was a nice touch. Also a nice companion to the currently popular theory that if you *do* change your position you're a "flip flopper" or a "waffler." There seems to be no winning. If you don't change your mind, you're arrogent and unreasonable. If you do, you're weak and undependable.
*shakes head*
Now, that we've both gotten our shots in Skar, should we try again and perhaps find *real* flaws in the arguments instead of making them up about the person making them?
@ rainbow: "Has weird passions, loves things that most people don't, has habits that are a bit too weird for normal people, but they can do what most people do -- just not without being looked at weird." I find it irresponsible to call this "crazy." It has an undeserved stigma attached to it, and doesn't accurately approach the issue of difference at hand. I like collecting action figures. "Most people" don't do this and consider it "weird." That makes me a step or two away from dangerous? How does that follow. HOnestly, this is the sort of thinking that alienates people. Actually treating people that are different like their minds don't work right WILL drive them to insanity. Not because something was wrong to start with, but because they've been alienated and treated as damaged.
None of that seems to apply to Kelsier. He's *revered* for his differences. And his differences are rationally based. His interests are not very different from those of his peers. He doesn't actually do anything that different either.