Don't have a knee jerk reaction to the title. Read the actual story.
The guy obviously has serious mental health issue.
Anyway, I'm a huge free speech advocate, it's one of the few things I've drawn a line in the sand over and to be perfectly honest I'm not so sure I can defend this guy. I can understand how he didn't force anyone to do anything and how the people who committed suicide did so on their own. I've also drawn a line in the sand over assisted suicide, and firmly believe that people have a right to, as Nietzsche said, "Die at the right time". But the amount of ill will that went into this rattles me a bit.
Someone once told me "intent is important" when determining punishment for actions. Now what he did is perfectly legal under the first amendment and his sentence would get overturned in the Supreme Court I'm sure. But if his intent was to do harm for his own amusement and not to help wouldn't his actions have the same ethical value as someone who lies about themselves and defrauds money from a person? His actions carry at least the same ethical weight as theft by deception I'm sure. But then again ethics =/= logic =/= law
What do you think DST? Was his sentence fair? I'm not so sure how to feel exactly. It's something I'm going to have to think about.
On a sidenote: impress me DST. Try to get this to more than 2 pages without it devolving.
Sorry for any grammar/syntax errors. I can't be bothered to proof read.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … -1,00.htmlOn Nov. 27, 2005, a man in Faribault, Minn., received an e-mail with a subject line that read, "Melissa goodbye to Li Dao." It was a suicide note, scribbled digitally, sent by a woman to her online pen pal who had actively encouraged her to embrace death. The only catch: Li Dao was not a real person, and, according to authorities, the virtual advice was not an act of empathy but an attempt to manipulate Melissa into taking her own life — all for what the man told the police was the "the thrill of the chase."
Li Dao was one of the several aliases used by 48-year-old William Melchert-Dinkel, who would impersonate a female nurse and advise people on suicide methods in online chat rooms. Melissa was one of the dozens of victims he encouraged to commit suicide by feigning compassion. "Having your support is going to help me muster up the strength to go through with this," Melissa wrote to him. Melchert-Dinkel (who was a registered nurse at the time) then replied, advising Melissa to stay calm while she took her own life: "Just let yourself down on the rope and let go."
...
Kajouji, 18, a college freshman at Carleton University in Ottawa, chose not to follow Melchert-Dinkel's advice in hanging herself, instead choosing to jump into an icy river. In their exchanges, he pretended to be a female nurse and made such a determined case for hanging that the last question he ever asked her in an instant message — posed only hours before her death — was whether she had a rope for a backup plan. Kajouji had originally posted to chat rooms seeking help for successful suicide methods, saying she had depression for as long as she could remember. But by their first one-on-one exchange, she appeared set on jumping. "I hope it works," wrote Melchert-Dinkel, after she had outlined her plans.
The guy obviously has serious mental health issue.
Anyway, I'm a huge free speech advocate, it's one of the few things I've drawn a line in the sand over and to be perfectly honest I'm not so sure I can defend this guy. I can understand how he didn't force anyone to do anything and how the people who committed suicide did so on their own. I've also drawn a line in the sand over assisted suicide, and firmly believe that people have a right to, as Nietzsche said, "Die at the right time". But the amount of ill will that went into this rattles me a bit.
Someone once told me "intent is important" when determining punishment for actions. Now what he did is perfectly legal under the first amendment and his sentence would get overturned in the Supreme Court I'm sure. But if his intent was to do harm for his own amusement and not to help wouldn't his actions have the same ethical value as someone who lies about themselves and defrauds money from a person? His actions carry at least the same ethical weight as theft by deception I'm sure. But then again ethics =/= logic =/= law
What do you think DST? Was his sentence fair? I'm not so sure how to feel exactly. It's something I'm going to have to think about.
On a sidenote: impress me DST. Try to get this to more than 2 pages without it devolving.
Sorry for any grammar/syntax errors. I can't be bothered to proof read.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-05-11 16:47:01)