Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2008-07-02 04:16:30
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6701|Éire

lowing wrote:

Well, for me...............If you GOTTA lay some blame somewhere, blame the mother of this kid who killed herself.............Where the fuck was she while her daughter was getting lost in a fantasy world of MySpace , when she KNEW she had a social and mental problems in the real world that needed attention.....

Now, people can be mean, and the internet is just another extension of that cruelty that we can inflict on one another, grow a thick skin or stay the hell off the net, if you choose a bullshit fantasy world to live in like MySpace or EverQuest or Galaxies or whatever the fuck over the real world then you are already fucked............You can not blame REAL people for your fantasy world social problems...............................Uhhh except in Missouri apparently
Well although lowing is a little harsh in his tone I pretty much agree with him. There are times when a parent or loved one can try as hard as they like but can still not get through to their children to help them when it comes to psychological problems such as depression but at the same time lashing out at anyone who made an unkind comment towards them, like this woman has done, smacks of deflecting attention away from one's own guilt tbh.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-02 04:17:14)

2008-07-02 04:16:56
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7252|Cologne, Germany

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1. Don't let your children use the internet if you don't want to risk this kind of thing happening.
And don't let them out in public if you don't want them molested or killed.
Because no children get abducted, molested or killed when out without their parents....

This is a parental issue.

As to the other point: you would have to prove in a court of law that the perpetrator knew the impact of their comments, which can simply be rebutted with a 'I didn't think she would commit suicide'.
not really. The harassment alone could be a punishable crime/offense, regardless of the outcome, especially since this seems to have been a carefully constructed plan, that involved the other mum, her daughter, and even an employee.

If what they did can be called harassment in a legal sense, will be for a court to decide.
2008-07-02 04:32:09
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6239

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

1. Don't let your children use the internet if you don't want to risk this kind of thing happening.
And don't let them out in public if you don't want them molested or killed.
Because no children get abducted, molested or killed when out without their parents....
Uh......that's the point.  There are children who get molested or killed when in public, but we shouldn't punish the perpetrators because if they didn't want that to happen they shouldn't be out in public.

CameronPoe wrote:

This is a parental issue.
Yes.  But it's not an issue of parents preventing their children from being bullied, it's and issue of parents preventing their children from bullying others.  The same is true of teen drunkenness, or graffiti.  But to make parents do their job you have to legislate.

CameronPoe wrote:

As to the other point: you would have to prove in a court of law that the perpetrator knew the impact of their comments, which can simply be rebutted with a 'I didn't think she would commit suicide'.
No, you have to prove that the defendant reasonably should have known what their comments would result in.  Is that hard?  Yes.  Lots of cases are hard to prosecute.  A prime example is spousal abuse.  Should we just pretend that doesn't happen?
2008-07-02 05:19:34
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6967

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Uh......that's the point.  There are children who get molested or killed when in public, but we shouldn't punish the perpetrators because if they didn't want that to happen they shouldn't be out in public.
So you're trying to correlate verbal abuse and molestation/murder. That's quite an amazing stretch.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Yes.  But it's not an issue of parents preventing their children from being bullied, it's and issue of parents preventing their children from bullying others.  The same is true of teen drunkenness, or graffiti.  But to make parents do their job you have to legislate.
Children are inherently tribalistic and prone to lambasting a designated outcast because it makes them feel part of a group. It has been like that since time immemorial. What you're talking about is subverting natural behaviour patterns. That's not to say that what you're saying isn't a good thing - just telling you that you are talking about something as pointful as the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on terror'. And we're talking about children here, not adults.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, you have to prove that the defendant reasonably should have known what their comments would result in.  Is that hard?  Yes.  Lots of cases are hard to prosecute.  A prime example is spousal abuse.  Should we just pretend that doesn't happen?
We're talking children here, well I am anyway. How can one expect an immature teenager to know the consequences of their actions. Most can't even concentrate on an MTV music video for more than 2 minutes. I can remember as a teenager doing things the consequences of which I never thought through, as many others here have probably done also.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-02 05:20:40)

2008-07-02 05:34:39
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6239

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Uh......that's the point.  There are children who get molested or killed when in public, but we shouldn't punish the perpetrators because if they didn't want that to happen they shouldn't be out in public.
So you're trying to correlate verbal abuse and molestation/murder. That's quite an amazing stretch.
I'm applying you're logic to the wider system.  It isn't to suggest that they're on the same scale.  Rather, I'm testing the rule by applying it to other situations.  It's a good way of testing logic.  It's shows yours for the fallacy it is.

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Yes.  But it's not an issue of parents preventing their children from being bullied, it's and issue of parents preventing their children from bullying others.  The same is true of teen drunkenness, or graffiti.  But to make parents do their job you have to legislate.
Children are inherently tribalistic and prone to lambasting a designated outcast because it makes them feel part of a group. It has been like that since time immemorial. What you're talking about is subverting natural behaviour patterns. That's not to say that what you're saying isn't a good thing - just telling you that you are talking about something as pointful as the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on terror'. And we're talking about children here, not adults.
Uh.......no.  We're talking about the relationship between children and adults.  In fact, in the story it was an adult bullying a child.

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

No, you have to prove that the defendant reasonably should have known what their comments would result in.  Is that hard?  Yes.  Lots of cases are hard to prosecute.  A prime example is spousal abuse.  Should we just pretend that doesn't happen?
We're talking children here, well I am anyway. How can one expect an immature teenager to know the consequences of their actions. Most can't even concentrate on an MTV music video for more than 2 minutes. I can remember as a teenager doing things the consequences of which I never thought through, as many others here have probably done also.
And if it couldn't have been expected of the person to know it due to immaturity then they'd be found not guilty.  Where's the problem?
2008-07-02 05:40:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7063|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Is there something in that article that said this victim was tied up and forced to socialize on MySpace, or any other fantasy life website?
I suppose it could be argued Myspace is effectively a public place and its reasonable to expect to be able to carry on your business free from harassment and threat.
I would reasonably expect not to be harassed or insulted in say a library, cinema or restaurant, I wouldn't expect to have to walk away either to avoid hassle.
It would make interesting case law at least
Now this is an interesting argument.......However I would counter by asking you if you would continue to frequent a public place where you KNOW you will get into trouble.....Would a redneck frequent a hip hop club, or visa versa and expect it to be trouble free. This girl kept going back, she obviously kept responding, she could have deleted these contacts..
2008-07-02 05:42:04
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6967

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I'm applying you're logic to the wider system.  It isn't to suggest that they're on the same scale.  Rather, I'm testing the rule by applying it to other situations.  It's a good way of testing logic.  It's shows yours for the fallacy it is.
The fallacy is that physical violence levelled against somebody else is not analagous to someone taking their own life in response to verbal abuse.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Uh.......no.  We're talking about the relationship between children and adults.  In fact, in the story it was an adult bullying a child.
I'll be brutally honest with you: I didn't read the story.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And if it couldn't have been expected of the person to know it due to immaturity then they'd be found not guilty.  Where's the problem?
The problem is that in 99% of cases that's the case.
2008-07-02 05:46:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7063|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:


oh come on, lowing. That girl was the target of a deliberate, carefully planned attack, intent to cause her emotional harm.
This weren't some kids swearing randomly at each other via MSN.

If the other Mum knew that the girl had emotional problems already, her behaviour can not be justified. Aren't you usuallly the one demanding that people face the consequences of their actions ?
Yup I am......................Is there something in that article that said this victim was tied up and forced to socialize on MySpace, or any other fantasy life website?

I guess we must now blame Everquest and its creaters for the suicide of that dumb fuck that valued it more than real life.
the difference, Low, and I am pretty sure you know this, is that in this case, a planned, deliberate attack was constructed, aimed at causing the victim emotional harm. MSN was merely the way the harassment was done through. In other words, no one blames MSN, or the web. We blame those who participated on this despicable plan.

Of course the girl wasn't forced to kill herself. But those who participated were obviously willing and ready to cause their victim harm, albeit emotional one. For that, they should face the consequences.

Wether the harassment was done via MSN, or through "conventional" mean, is irrelevant in that regard.
The law against harassment was already there, it was merely updated to include new technologies.  What's the big deal here ?
No such thing as a deliberate planned attact in cyberspace........They posted shit, she read it and even responded to it. She could have deleted her account, started a new one and moved on.....Where would BF2S be if we all killed ourselves over shit that is posted toward us? C'mon get real....It is MYSPACE we are talking about here....A fantasy vertual life that isn't even real....This girl needed help and REAL people in her life neglected to provide it....
2008-07-02 05:53:49
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6239

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I'm applying you're logic to the wider system.  It isn't to suggest that they're on the same scale.  Rather, I'm testing the rule by applying it to other situations.  It's a good way of testing logic.  It's shows yours for the fallacy it is.
The fallacy is that physical violence levelled against somebody else is not analagous to someone taking their own life in response to verbal abuse.
But your point wasn't that you can't blame the attackers for the suicide because the attackers didn't cause the harm directly.  You said that it was irrelevant because if parents didn't want their children verbally abused, they shouldn't let them on the internet.

Ignoring that: causing someone to suicide by willfully misleading them is certainly similar to doing physical harm.  Verbal abuse is a recognised form of spousal abuse, for example.

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Uh.......no.  We're talking about the relationship between children and adults.  In fact, in the story it was an adult bullying a child.
I'll be brutally honest with you: I didn't read the story.
Well that's real helpful.  Perhaps before you go criticising people for what they do you should actually RTFM (so to speak).

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

And if it couldn't have been expected of the person to know it due to immaturity then they'd be found not guilty.  Where's the problem?
The problem is that in 99% of cases that's the case.
Actually, no.  Many bullies know they'll cause harm to their victims.  In fact, that's exactly what they're trying to do.
2008-07-02 06:16:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6967

ZombieVampire! wrote:

But your point wasn't that you can't blame the attackers for the suicide because the attackers didn't cause the harm directly.  You said that it was irrelevant because if parents didn't want their children verbally abused, they shouldn't let them on the internet.

Ignoring that: causing someone to suicide by willfully misleading them is certainly similar to doing physical harm.  Verbal abuse is a recognised form of spousal abuse, for example.
My point pertained to parental responsibilities. If the parents knew of their childs mental condition and knew of the risk to their childs mental health of being exposed to the internet then they should have taken remedial action, just like how many parents don't allow their children to wander the streets on their own.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Actually, no.  Many bullies know they'll cause harm to their victims.  In fact, that's exactly what they're trying to do.
So are you advocating juvenile detention of bullies in correctional centres?
2008-07-02 06:23:14
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6239

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

But your point wasn't that you can't blame the attackers for the suicide because the attackers didn't cause the harm directly.  You said that it was irrelevant because if parents didn't want their children verbally abused, they shouldn't let them on the internet.

Ignoring that: causing someone to suicide by willfully misleading them is certainly similar to doing physical harm.  Verbal abuse is a recognised form of spousal abuse, for example.
My point pertained to parental responsibilities. If the parents knew of their childs mental condition and knew of the risk to their childs mental health of being exposed to the internet then they should have taken remedial action, just like how many parents don't allow their children to wander the streets on their own.
Except that you ought have a reasonable expectation that your children aren't emotionally tortured online: just like you ought have a reasonable expectation that they aren't attacked walking home from school.

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Actually, no.  Many bullies know they'll cause harm to their victims.  In fact, that's exactly what they're trying to do.
So are you advocating juvenile detention of bullies in correctional centres?
If they maliciously caused serious harm, yes.  But for it to get to that point it'd take a failure from many people.
2008-07-02 06:31:09
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6967

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Except that you ought have a reasonable expectation that your children aren't emotionally tortured online: just like you ought have a reasonable expectation that they aren't attacked walking home from school.
It's not as reasonable to expect not to be emotionally bullied. Bullying is endemic amongst children - a natural occurrence and symptom of immaturity. Killing/abduction/molestation is an extreme rarity practiced only by a few of unnatural and unsound mind.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

If they maliciously caused serious harm, yes.  But for it to get to that point it'd take a failure from many people.
I don't believe in punishing, say, an 11 year old with incarceration for stupid immaturity. Your 'combatting the culture' idea was far better than this.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-02 06:31:26)

2008-07-02 06:32:53
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7252|Cologne, Germany

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:


Yup I am......................Is there something in that article that said this victim was tied up and forced to socialize on MySpace, or any other fantasy life website?

I guess we must now blame Everquest and its creaters for the suicide of that dumb fuck that valued it more than real life.
the difference, Low, and I am pretty sure you know this, is that in this case, a planned, deliberate attack was constructed, aimed at causing the victim emotional harm. MSN was merely the way the harassment was done through. In other words, no one blames MSN, or the web. We blame those who participated on this despicable plan.

Of course the girl wasn't forced to kill herself. But those who participated were obviously willing and ready to cause their victim harm, albeit emotional one. For that, they should face the consequences.

Wether the harassment was done via MSN, or through "conventional" mean, is irrelevant in that regard.
The law against harassment was already there, it was merely updated to include new technologies.  What's the big deal here ?
No such thing as a deliberate planned attact in cyberspace........They posted shit, she read it and even responded to it. She could have deleted her account, started a new one and moved on.....Where would BF2S be if we all killed ourselves over shit that is posted toward us? C'mon get real....It is MYSPACE we are talking about here....A fantasy vertual life that isn't even real....This girl needed help and REAL people in her life neglected to provide it....
What do you mean, no deliberate planned attack ? Three people, one of them being an adult, came together and agreed to create a false identity on MySpace to cause emotional distress to the poor girl. If that's not a fucking planned attack, I don't know what is.
According to Wikipedia , the Grand Jury indicted Lori Drew on May 15, 2008, on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. Each count of the indictment carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. You think I make too much out of this ? We'll see.

Also, I don't subscribe to the concept of MySpace ( or other social networks, even the web in general ) being a virtual reality, that has nothing to do with "real" reality. People communicating over the internet are real people, too, with real feelings and emotions. I am pretty sure Megan felt that way when talking to "Josh". To argue that the emotional pain inflicted ín this "virtual" reality is somehow less painful, or even meaningless, is simply absurd. Meagn did not know that "Josh" wasn't a real person. She didn't know that someone was trying to set her up. To her, it was a real person, someone she considered a friend, ripping her heart out.
With some rare exceptions, those are real people sitting in front of those computers, Low, and I believe they have the same right to be protected from harassment and bullying than the rest of us.

Let's put it this way: the law against harassment ( which I am pretty sure you support ) already included harassment via traditional means of communication, for example a phone. And what else would MySpace be, other than a lot of people communicating over a lot of phone lines ?

Now, the GJ didn't indict on charges of harassment. And they didn't indict on charges of murder either. But they did say it could have been conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, which is pretty much what happened. Is that a punishable crime ? I don't know. Will we see a trial ? No idea.

But I strongly believe that the perpetrators should face some consequences for their actions.
2008-07-02 06:39:31
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7252|Cologne, Germany

CameronPoe wrote:

We're talking children here, well I am anyway. How can one expect an immature teenager to know the consequences of their actions. Most can't even concentrate on an MTV music video for more than 2 minutes. I can remember as a teenager doing things the consequences of which I never thought through, as many others here have probably done also.
no we're not. The mother of the other girl participated in the conspiracy, even brought in an employee of hers to support her and her daughter.
This was not just a case of simple schoolyard bullying.
2008-07-02 07:07:51
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6541|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

No such thing as a deliberate planned attact in cyberspace........They posted shit, she read it and even responded to it. She could have deleted her account, started a new one and moved on.....Where would BF2S be if we all killed ourselves over shit that is posted toward us? C'mon get real....It is MYSPACE we are talking about here....A fantasy vertual life that isn't even real....This girl needed help and REAL people in her life neglected to provide it....
Maybe you should read about what happened.  If you had, you'd know that what happened was not 'constant bullying', but rather a malicious plot meant to build up trust in a vulnerable child and then destroy it in one day.  And it was perpetrated by a person who knew that it would cause harm.  That child was essentially conned by an 'adult'.

That woman should take responsibility for the damage she caused.  You of all people should agree, lowing.  Personal responsibility and all, no?
2008-07-02 07:14:13
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6541|North Tonawanda, NY

CameronPoe wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Except that you ought have a reasonable expectation that your children aren't emotionally tortured online: just like you ought have a reasonable expectation that they aren't attacked walking home from school.
It's not as reasonable to expect not to be emotionally bullied. Bullying is endemic amongst children - a natural occurrence and symptom of immaturity. Killing/abduction/molestation is an extreme rarity practiced only by a few of unnatural and unsound mind.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

If they maliciously caused serious harm, yes.  But for it to get to that point it'd take a failure from many people.
I don't believe in punishing, say, an 11 year old with incarceration for stupid immaturity. Your 'combatting the culture' idea was far better than this.
There is a difference between 'kids will be kids' (schoolyard bullying, etc...) and an adult intentionally and maliciously attacking a child.

I'm sure you would see a difference between an 11 year old bullying an 11 year old in the school yard and some kids dad bullying an 11 year old in the school yard.  When a parent does it, it is unacceptable.
2008-07-02 07:18:07
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6754|tropical regions of london
I blame muslims


edit: and illegals

Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-02 07:18:30)

2008-07-02 08:10:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7063|USA

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:


the difference, Low, and I am pretty sure you know this, is that in this case, a planned, deliberate attack was constructed, aimed at causing the victim emotional harm. MSN was merely the way the harassment was done through. In other words, no one blames MSN, or the web. We blame those who participated on this despicable plan.

Of course the girl wasn't forced to kill herself. But those who participated were obviously willing and ready to cause their victim harm, albeit emotional one. For that, they should face the consequences.

Wether the harassment was done via MSN, or through "conventional" mean, is irrelevant in that regard.
The law against harassment was already there, it was merely updated to include new technologies.  What's the big deal here ?
No such thing as a deliberate planned attact in cyberspace........They posted shit, she read it and even responded to it. She could have deleted her account, started a new one and moved on.....Where would BF2S be if we all killed ourselves over shit that is posted toward us? C'mon get real....It is MYSPACE we are talking about here....A fantasy vertual life that isn't even real....This girl needed help and REAL people in her life neglected to provide it....
What do you mean, no deliberate planned attack ? Three people, one of them being an adult, came together and agreed to create a false identity on MySpace to cause emotional distress to the poor girl. If that's not a fucking planned attack, I don't know what is.
According to Wikipedia , the Grand Jury indicted Lori Drew on May 15, 2008, on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. Each count of the indictment carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. You think I make too much out of this ? We'll see.

Also, I don't subscribe to the concept of MySpace ( or other social networks, even the web in general ) being a virtual reality, that has nothing to do with "real" reality. People communicating over the internet are real people, too, with real feelings and emotions. I am pretty sure Megan felt that way when talking to "Josh". To argue that the emotional pain inflicted ín this "virtual" reality is somehow less painful, or even meaningless, is simply absurd. Meagn did not know that "Josh" wasn't a real person. She didn't know that someone was trying to set her up. To her, it was a real person, someone she considered a friend, ripping her heart out.
With some rare exceptions, those are real people sitting in front of those computers, Low, and I believe they have the same right to be protected from harassment and bullying than the rest of us.

Let's put it this way: the law against harassment ( which I am pretty sure you support ) already included harassment via traditional means of communication, for example a phone. And what else would MySpace be, other than a lot of people communicating over a lot of phone lines ?

Now, the GJ didn't indict on charges of harassment. And they didn't indict on charges of murder either. But they did say it could have been conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, which is pretty much what happened. Is that a punishable crime ? I don't know. Will we see a trial ? No idea.

But I strongly believe that the perpetrators should face some consequences for their actions.
Ok, now I am not being a smart ass here, but in regards t owhat you are saying, anyone that has a fight and "breaks off" a relationship leaving the hurt party in distress and kills themselves can be held accountable for it. Mind games have been and always will be played in relationships, and that is in real life!! Do you condone accountablity for a person who kills themself over a real life relationship after a break up? I seriously doubt that you would.
2008-07-02 08:14:27
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6541|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Ok, now I am not being a smart ass here, but in regards t owhat you are saying, anyone that has a fight and "breaks off" a relationship leaving the hurt party in distress and kills themselves can be held accountable for it. Mind games have been and always will be played in relationships, and that is in real life!! Do you condone accountablity for a person who kills themself over a real life relationship after a break up? I seriously doubt that you would.
If that had been an actual relationship, I would tend to agree.  But it wasn't...it was an act engineered to cause emotional harm.  That is what sets this apart.
2008-07-02 08:16:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7063|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

No such thing as a deliberate planned attact in cyberspace........They posted shit, she read it and even responded to it. She could have deleted her account, started a new one and moved on.....Where would BF2S be if we all killed ourselves over shit that is posted toward us? C'mon get real....It is MYSPACE we are talking about here....A fantasy vertual life that isn't even real....This girl needed help and REAL people in her life neglected to provide it....
Maybe you should read about what happened.  If you had, you'd know that what happened was not 'constant bullying', but rather a malicious plot meant to build up trust in a vulnerable child and then destroy it in one day.  And it was perpetrated by a person who knew that it would cause harm.  That child was essentially conned by an 'adult'.

That woman should take responsibility for the damage she caused.  You of all people should agree, lowing.  Personal responsibility and all, no?
I have read it, and I put the responsibility on the "victim" not to engage in such fullishness in fantasy worlds such as MySpace...I also lay blame on her parents who knew she had a problem and left her to submerge into such non-sense.

Kids can be cruel, so are some adults, that is as old as the hills, we are responsible for how we deal with such situations. To kill yourself over a MYSpace fantasy is as stupid as it is tragic...
2008-07-02 08:19:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7063|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok, now I am not being a smart ass here, but in regards t owhat you are saying, anyone that has a fight and "breaks off" a relationship leaving the hurt party in distress and kills themselves can be held accountable for it. Mind games have been and always will be played in relationships, and that is in real life!! Do you condone accountablity for a person who kills themself over a real life relationship after a break up? I seriously doubt that you would.
If that had been an actual relationship, I would tend to agree.  But it wasn't...it was an act engineered to cause emotional harm.  That is what sets this apart.
You say this as if mind games are not part of actual relationships...............If you cheated on your girlfriend with her roommate, I am pretty sure that would cause emotional distress, and you would know it....If she kills herself, after killing her roomate, should you be held accountable for the murder suicide and face "consequences"?


PS...........the fact that it wasn't even a real relationship makes the "victim" that much more off her rocker

Last edited by lowing (2008-07-02 08:21:57)

2008-07-02 08:19:50
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6541|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

I have read it, and I put the responsibility on the "victim" not to engage in such fullishness in fantasy worlds such as MySpace...I also lay blame on her parents who knew she had a problem and left her to submerge into such non-sense.

Kids can be cruel, so are some adults, that is as old as the hills, we are responsible for how we deal with such situations. To kill yourself over a MYSpace fantasy is as stupid as it is tragic...
Stupid?  Yes.  There is certainly blame on the parents and I wouldn't try to say there isn't.  However, that woman's actions directly led to what happened...and she should have to take some responsibility for it.
2008-07-02 08:22:27
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6541|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

You say this as if mind games are not part of actual relationships...............If you cheated on your girlfriend with her roommate, I am pretty sure that would cause emotional distress, and you would know it....If she kills herself, after killing her roomate, should you be held accountable for the murder suicide and face "consequences"?
Did I start the relationship out of fraud?  Did I know she was mentally unstable?  Did I cheat on her because I thought it would be funny?

If I answer yes to those, then I probably should face some consequences.

I don't think this woman should be accountable for murder or manslaughter, but she should face some consequences for her actions.
2008-07-02 08:25:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7063|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have read it, and I put the responsibility on the "victim" not to engage in such fullishness in fantasy worlds such as MySpace...I also lay blame on her parents who knew she had a problem and left her to submerge into such non-sense.

Kids can be cruel, so are some adults, that is as old as the hills, we are responsible for how we deal with such situations. To kill yourself over a MYSpace fantasy is as stupid as it is tragic...
Stupid?  Yes.  There is certainly blame on the parents and I wouldn't try to say there isn't.  However, that woman's actions directly led to what happened...and she should have to take some responsibility for it.
It was a shitty thing to do no doubt............but we really need to be careful about how we are going to hold each other accountable for our own actions
2008-07-02 08:25:24
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6519|Birmingham, UK
Lol. I just don't know what to say. We are in control of our one lives. She wanted to kill herself because a 40 year old peado made her feel bad, fine. But don't make a dumb law controling what we can say.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard