young girl tells "friend" to kill himself. Is she responsible?

[Granite]

It's impossible to know. And that's important to understand. She could have talked him out of it that moment, and he'd killed himself an hour later.

But what we know for a fact is that she chose not to and to deliberately do exactly the opposite of this. What conclusion can we then draw?

No matter how you look at this, you can't draw any more than a speculative correlation between her words and his deeds.

Her words were her action. That's a connection you're simply unable or unwilling to make.

No one is defending her, that I can see. But the reaction to her behavior seems puzzlingly irrational to me, including the assumption that pointing this out is 'defending her'.

I honestly don't know if you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary or what.

 

[PureX]

But what we know for a fact is that she chose not to and to deliberately do exactly the opposite of this. What conclusion can we then draw?

That she is a sick and/or horrible person.

Her words were her action. That's a connection you're simply unable or unwilling to make.

Her words did not and could not control the minds or actions of others.

People love to spout off endlessly around here about personal responsibility. And yet many of those same people then avoid taking personal responsibility for their own thoughts and actions by claiming that they are just "obeying God's words". They are completely ignoring the fact that it is their choice to "obey God", and it's their own idea of God and interpretation of "God's words" that they are choosing to obey. When they blame God for their own thoughts and actions they are lying to themselves, and to the rest of us.

I don't see this scenario as being any different. That young man chose to listen to the girl's words, and chose to follow them. She did not make him think or do anything that he did not choose, of his own accord, to think or do. His death is his own responsibility. And no one else's.

All she is responsible for is her own words and behavior. And no matter how ugly and cruel those may have been, they did not kill anyone.

I honestly don't know if you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary or what.

I'm just trying to interject some reason into this bizarre rush/need to assign responsibility for this young man's thoughts and actions to someone other than himself.

 

[Granite]

That she is a sick and/or horrible person.

See, it's this kind of thing that makes me think you're just being argumentative for its own sake. If you agree she's depraved there's nothing left to "debate" here unless you're bored or just want to stir the pot for the fun of it.

Her words did not and could not control the minds or actions of others.

Ah, I see. So words don't have power. At all. To any degree whatsoever. (Who said anything about "control," as an aside?)

People love to spout off endlessly around here about personal responsibility. And yet many of those same people then avoid taking personal responsibility for their own thoughts and actions by claiming that they are just "obeying God's words". They are completely ignoring the fact that it is their choice to "obey God", and it's their own idea of God and interpretation of "God's words" that they are choosing to obey.

This may be true but it's fairly unrelated to the issue here.

That young man chose to listen to the girl's words, and chose to follow them. She did not make him think or do anything that he did not choose, of his own accord, to think or do. His death is his own responsibility. And no one else's.

Well this is striking me more and more as victim blaming. By definition a suicidal individual is not at their best, as it were. Their vulnerability makes them susceptible to outside influences they may normally ignore, or interpret differently, or cope with--on that much I think we can agree. To put it another way: You seem to expect a fellow who just lost a leg to run a marathon.

While the ultimate decision might be his the steps taken to that point seemed to have been greatly influenced by a creature who preyed on a vulnerable soul.

All she is responsible for is her own words and behavior. And no matter how ugly and cruel those may have been, they did not kill anyone.

Which leads back to my question: Is there a higher likelihood this young man would be alive today if this depraved young woman hadn't chosen to manipulate and influence him in his hour of need?

You're defending her indirectly whether you realize it or not.

 

[Rusha]

I'm just trying to interject some reason into this bizarre rush/need to assign responsibility for this young man's thoughts and actions to someone other than himself.

To which you are failing miserably ...

Do you consider urging someone to commit suicide a good thing?

 

[PureX]

To which you are failing miserably …

Well, ya'll are pretty thick, sometimes! :chuckle:

Do you consider urging someone to commit suicide a good thing?

No, I don't. But laws aren't based on what we think is "bad". They're based on freedom, equality, and autonomy. That woman is free to say what she wants. Just as that man was free to reject whatever she said. And no matter how you try to spin it, in the end, no one can make us think something we don't agree to think, or do something we don't agree to do. They can lie to us, and mislead us, but even then, we can always choose not to believe them, and not to act on their words.

If I said to you right now that I think you should kill yourself, it would be a horrible thing for me to say. But I would still be free to say it. Because you are just as free to ignore what I say. As I'd hope you would in that case.

 

[Rusha]

No, I don't. But laws aren't based on what we think is "bad". They're based on freedom, equality, and autonomy. That woman is free to say what she wants. Just as that man was free to reject whatever she said. And no matter how you try to spin it, in the end, no one can make us think something we don't agree to think, or do something we don't agree to do. They can lie to us, and mislead us, but even then, we can always choose not to believe them, and not to act on their words.

If I said to you right now that I think your should kill yourself, it would be a horrible thing for me to say. But I would still be free to say it. Because you are free to ignore what I say. As I'd hope you would.

Interesting. Do you support hate crime legislation? IF someone uses the "N" word right before beating someone to a bloody pulp, you would be opposed to charging them with a hate crime, correct?

 

[Town Heretic]

Sure you have, you've called her a sociopath multiple times, can i see your license to practice psychiatry?

I know you've been wanting to try to turn that one back on me, but it's just not true. I haven't done it. In answering speculation I've noted it as a possibility in reading the evidence. Here's what I've actually wrote in answer to Pure's notion:

...We don't know that she's mentally ill. We do know that he was.

...his was the product of an illness and we don't know that's true of her, assuming the evidence is as reported. She might very well be a little sociopath who wasn't clever enough to consider the electronic record. :idunno:

Perhaps she did, but believed that suicide was a good thing, just as he did. In which case they were both equally ill. Or maybe she was willing to see him die just so she could get some attention. That sounds like some pretty ill thinking, too. I fact, I can't really imagine any reasoning for her actions that isn't expressive of illness. Can you?

Or maybe she's just a sociopath.

I also considered, speculating on what could advance her actions if she is guilty:

What possible explanation could there be for her wanting him to kill himself that doesn't express illness?

Evil. Willful depravity and a lack of moral compass.

Or maybe she's wired wrong, in which case she needs to be taken out of society before anyone else is harmed.

...If the reports are right it's possible. And again, all the more reason to adjudicate and get her off the streets.

You've also insisted shes to blame and the trial isnt over is it?

Also not true. Here's what I've said on that count:

You're assuming she didn't take him seriously. We don't know. We do know that the fellow who is charged with advancing particulars and the case is convinced that she's culpable. The rest is for a jury to weigh.

...All I know is that what's reported doesn't look good, the prosecutor and the grand jury believe there's reason to go forward with the involuntary manslaughter charge and given the case law I noted I can see why. The rest should play out along the lines I noted, with the trier of fact determining the truth of the matter.

Well, I entered to do little more than explain the context for the charges and to respond to efforts that were focusing on elements that were either not properly in play or considered out of context. I didn't get into judging and have mostly qualified speculation as hypothetical using, "if" and "then" and adding the truth would have to be established by a trier of fact.

I haven't adjudicated her guilt or attempted to.

To sum, I haven't pronounced her guilty, only set out why your early beliefs were wrong as a matter of law and, in relation to Pure, discussed what might motivate someone to act that way.

If the evidence we have isn't contravened she appears to have a serious problem of some sort, at the very least legal in nature. Precisely what is for a jury or judge to decide.

 

[PureX]

See, it's this kind of thing that makes me think you're just being argumentative for its own sake. If you agree she's depraved there's nothing left to "debate" here unless you're bored or just want to stir the pot for the fun of it.

The world is full of 'depraved' people. Why they are that way is anyone's guess: sickness, choice, or probably a combination of both. But being 'depraved' is not illegal, nor should it be. The purpose of the law is not to make us "good", it's simply to protect us from each other, while simultaneously protecting our right to think and act each according to our own mind.

Ah, I see. So words don't have power. At all. To any degree whatsoever. (Who said anything about "control," as an aside?)

Words have whatever power we assign to them. That's my point. We assign them whatever power they have over us, not the speaker.

Well this is striking me more and more as victim blaming. By definition a suicidal individual is not at their best, as it were.

Neither is a homicidal person. But "not being at their best" does not excuse either of them from responsibility for their actions. Yet most of the folks, here, seem to think it does, and therefor they are blaming her for his actions.

Their vulnerability makes them susceptible to outside influences they may normally ignore, or interpret differently, or cope with--on that much I think we can agree.

Everyone's 'vulnerable' to their own internal weaknesses. Criminals are 'vulnerable' to their own rage, and greed, and impulsiveness, or their addictions and whatever else it is within them that motivates them to commit crimes. Why is this guy's internal weakness any different than the woman's internal weakness? I just don't see how his vulnerabilities excuse him, but condemn her.

While the ultimate decision might be his the steps taken to that point seemed to have been greatly influenced by a creature who preyed on a vulnerable soul.

Welcome to reality. We are all being prayed upon, even as we speak, by people who don't care in the least about our well-being, and who are willing to watch us die for the sake of their own pleasure. And if we don't understand this, and fight back, they will succeed. In many instances they are succeeding. And we are not being excused by God or life because of our weakness and vulnerability. Nor should we be, should we?

Which leads back to my question: Is there a higher likelihood this young man would be alive today if this depraved young woman hadn't chosen to manipulate and influence him in his hour of need?

There is no way to know the answer to that. And assuming we know, pretending we know, or acting as if we know is both irrational, and dishonest. Yet there seems to be a very strong urge among some of us to do that. And I'm curious why.

 

[Granite]

The world is full of 'depraved' people. Why they are that way is anyone's guess: sickness, choice, or probably a combination of both. But being 'depraved' is not illegal, nor should it be.

True, but actions have consequences. Inaction can have consequences as well.

Words have whatever power we assign to them. That's my point. We assign them whatever power they have over us, not the speaker.

To say that a suicidal individual is at the peak of their individual "power" is daft, at best. Beyond callous at worst. Do you honestly not understand how uneven this playing field really was? What kind of "power" do you think a Holocaust survivor has over someone yelling racial slurs or chanting "Sig heil" outside their house? What type of "power" is available to a black child who hears the N-word shouted in their direction?

We are way, way beyond any "sticks and stones" nonsense.

But "not being at their best" does not excuse either of them from responsibility for their actions.

I completely disagree. Again--you're asking someone at an inherent disadvantage to act as though they were on equal footing. (How you can actually expect a suicidal individual to act this way is borderline despicable, to be blunt.) Let's try this on for size: Would "not being at your best" ever be an acceptable reaction to certain sexual encounters? "Well shucks, neither of us were at our best; let's just chalk this up to experience and call it a night."

Why is this guy's internal weakness any different than the woman's internal weakness?

You are downright baffling today. You're equating her own serious issues (heartsickness and depravity) with the hurt and pain of a suicidal young man who she needled and prodded into self-murder?

Seriously, man, don't volunteer at the call center anytime soon. The hotline's got all the help it needs.

There is no way to know the answer to that. And assuming we know, pretending we know, or acting as if we know is both irrational, and dishonest. Yet there seems to be a very strong urge among some of us to do that. And I'm curious why.

And I for one am officially sick to death of this asinine "just asking questions" excuse which is trotted out by the devious and sly to justify being unpleasant and defending the indefensible.

 

[republicanchick]

But what we know for a fact is that she chose not to and to deliberately do exactly the opposite of this. What conclusion can we then draw?



Her words were her action. That's a connection you're simply unable or unwilling to make.



I honestly don't know if you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary or what.

Oh my, this is troubling... yes indeed... quite troubling...

when I agree w/ YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH



___

 

[elsar259]

if some one push other people to kill others or him/her self it's mean criminal a serious one

 

[Angel4Truth]

Would her "friend" be more or less likely to be alive right now without her meddling and manipulation?

Completely unknown.

Why the world anyone here would go to any lengths to defend this young woman's completely beyond me.

Saying she didn't kill him, isnt defending her actions. What she said was atrocious, but she didn't kill him, he killed himself.

 

[Granite]

Saying she didn't kill him, isnt defending her actions. What she said was atrocious, but she didn't kill him, he killed himself.

No one's said otherwise.

 

[PureX]

Encouraging suicide, whether we agree with it or not, is not against the law. Neither is encouraging murder, or rape, or any other crime. Is it?

Should it be? Should we be locking up people who encourage criminal behavior? Should we be locking up rap musicians because they encourage the killing of cops and sexual abuse of women? What if they are encouraging a revolt against the government? Should that be against the law … because you know the government will want it to be.

 

[Rusha]

Encouraging suicide, whether we agree with it or not, is not against the law. Neither is encouraging murder, or rape, or any other crime. Is it?

Should it be? Should we be locking up people who encourage criminal behavior? Should we be locking up rap musicians because they encourage the killing of cops and sexual abuse of women? What if they are encouraging a revolt against the government? Should that be against the law … because you know the government will want it to be.

There is a difference between a moral standard as compared to a legal standard. Should you encourage someone to commit suicide, rape someone or murder another human being?

Just how far are you willing to take that? Charles Manson did not actually participate in the Tate/LaBianca murders ....

 

[Sitamun]

"RICO" laws were created to legally deal with "encouraging" murder and other crimes.

 

[PureX]

There is a difference between a moral standard as compared to a legal standard.

I agree. Being morally reprehensible is not illegal, because we all have the right and the ability to choose our own moral imperatives. And I believe we all ought to understand why this is so important to a free society.

Should you encourage someone to commit suicide, rape someone or murder another human being?

You seem to be questioning our right of freedom of speech. Do you think this kind of speech should be illegal? How do you differentiate it from speech that should be allowed? And who do you purpose be in charge of determining this?

Let's say this woman believed that suicide is a good thing because there are too many humans on Earth, or because she believes death is a far superior state than living. So she wants to "preach" her beliefs to others, particularly those who are contemplating suicide. Should she be denied her freedom of speech because you disagree? Should she be denied because she preached to "weak people" who are contemplating suicide? If this is part of her religion, should she be denied her right to proselytize her religious beliefs?

Just how far are you willing to take that? Charles Manson did not actually participate in the Tate/LaBianca murders ....

That's a very good question, and example. But I can ask the same thing: just how far are YOU willing to take it? If encouraging suicide is illegal, why isn't encouraging other potentially deadly behavior illegal, like drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, racing cars and mountain climbing?

 

[republicanchick]

I That's a very good question, and example. But I can ask the same thing: just how far are YOU willing to take it? If encouraging suicide is illegal, why isn't encouraging other potentially deadly behavior illegal, like drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, racing cars and mountain climbing?

i think most people survive such things



___

 

[republicanchick]

if you yell Fire and people get stampeded..

are you responsible?



___

 

[PureX]

i think most people survive such things

Lots of people survive suicidal thoughts, too.


You're missing the point.