• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The bullies win again[W710; 739]

Yes... right...
Ok... What ever... Master debator.

You knew how it was used, and there was nothing wrong with it.

But since you have moved on to personal criticism, I know, and am confident, in where I stand. iLOL

What is your motivation for this "brave stand for personal responsibility" you seem to be carving out for yourself here, Excon?

You're getting blowback from every political lean on DP. Perchance you might consider if these people know a bit about this subject that, as yet, you do not.
 
Should bullying be punished?

"Bullying" is not a legal term. "Assault", "harrassment", "negligent homicide", invasion of privacy", "child pornography" are legal terms.

Not every incident of bullying rises to the level of criminal conduct, nor should it.
 
Yes... right...
Ok... What ever... Master debator.

You knew how it was used, and there was nothing wrong with it.

But since you have moved on to personal criticism, I know, and am confident, in where I stand. iLOL

And now comes the ad hominem......an obvious sign of failure and of inevitable submission. I graciously accept your surrender and your apology as well for being so intellectually dishonest and so inept at real debate. Good night.
 
Not every incident of bullying rises to the level of criminal conduct, nor should it.

Of course not. But, I would say that it definitely can arise to the level of criminal conduct.
 
Of course not. But, I would say that it definitely can arise to the level of criminal conduct.

Among other crimes. BTW, the bill I asked you to support does not punish bullicide as harshly as Murder Two.
 
And now comes the ad hominem......an obvious sign of failure and of inevitable submission. I graciously accept your surrender and your apology as well for being so intellectually dishonest and so inept at real debate. Good night.
Holy ****!
You really are full of your self, aren't you?

And still focusing on the person, and of course exposing yourself as being wrong.


Too bad you are wrong.
Which I suppose will now be a regular occurrence with you.
The future will tell.
 
Holy ****!
You really are full of your self, aren't you?

And still focusing on the person, and of course exposing yourself as being wrong.


Too bad you are wrong.
Which I suppose will now be a regular occurrence with you.
The future will tell.

What amazes me if that no matter how serious the subject under discussion might be, "some people" are so willing to jack a thread so as to indulge a petty squabble and stroke their own ego.
 
People who bully are people who usually are insecure about something in their own lives.
 
People who bully are people who usually are insecure about something in their own lives.

Maybe this is true of children....it certainly isn't as to adults. There, the motive is sadism, most of the time.

There's an American nurse who had a habit of joining suicide chatrooms, to find other adults considering suicide. She used her medical knowledge to teach people how to kill themselves, and then made "suicide pacts" with them which resulted in at least 8 deaths that we know of.

The US could not prosecute this man, because of our freedom of speech laws. (All the victims were adults.) Canada eventually arrested this person and once they did, the US state that had issued this man a nursing license revoked it. There's little doubt, this man was motivated by a sadistic desire to be entertained by leading depressed people to suicide.


William Francis Melchert-Dinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The technology and its impact on our lives, its potential for abuse, is outstripping out capacity to understand as well as our ability to make adequate new criminal laws.
 
Yeah..I think that is insane.

I understand that's how you see things, Henrin. But IF I could convince you that a child can be brainwashed on the net, I doubt you'd hold fast.

So really, all we disagree about is the power and ubiquity of the technology.
 
No, the child is not responsible, Henrin. The internet creates a potential for a level of brain washing on a vulnerable person that almost no drug we have invented can achieve -- and with kids, it is pretty common that their friends and classmates know all about whatever interaction is burning a hole in their life.

Now she was brainwashed somehow? When did that happen in the story? Though yes, your friends and classmates might know if you put your boobs on the Internet and people are all talking about it and sharing the pictures. Sometimes you do stupid ignorant things and you pay for them in this life and the Internet doesn't change that much. It just speeds up the delivery and makes it harder to control the damage.
 
Yeah..I think that is insane.

Can someone be punished for encouraging someone to commit suicide? William Francis Melchert-Dinkel, who has been referenced in this thread, was a nurse who joined suicide chat rooms and encouraged people to commit suicide, falsely entered suicide pacts, and watched those who committed suicide via webcam. Should he have been punished?
 
I seriously don't understand how one can hear about this story, presumably watch the video and yet reserve their harshest judgment for the girl.

The thing that really gets me is that there's always the, crowd that thinks their "girl" who somehow got tricked into flashing her boobs online. I'm willing to bet this wasn't her first big ****-up, was it Mom and Dad?
 
Can someone be punished for encouraging someone to commit suicide? William Francis Melchert-Dinkel, who has been referenced in this thread, was a nurse who joined suicide chat rooms and encouraged people to commit suicide, falsely entered suicide pacts, and watched those who committed suicide via webcam. Should he have been punished?

Melchel-Dinkel presents a huge challenge to our system of justice. We can all see that an adult with evil intentions can say and do things that create a heightened risk of suicide among adults. We can all see that if we criminalize all discussions another adult might rely on, we have effectively muffled free speech.

It's a damned shame, but we have a clear path to criminalizing fraud and wanton destruction and other types of harms committed via the net -- but acts that create a risk of physical harm are much, much harder for us to control without treading on the freedoms we all hold dear.

 
Can someone be punished for encouraging someone to commit suicide? William Francis Melchert-Dinkel, who has been referenced in this thread, was a nurse who joined suicide chat rooms and encouraged people to commit suicide, falsely entered suicide pacts, and watched those who committed suicide via webcam. Should he have been punished?

Can someone be punished for what he did? I believe he was in Minnesota. If I agree with it is an entirely different matter though.
 
The thing that really gets me is that there's always the, crowd that thinks their "girl" who somehow got tricked into flashing her boobs online. I'm willing to bet this wasn't her first big ****-up, was it Mom and Dad?

Yet another country heard from.

If the parents had done everything within their power to protect this child, she still could have been driven to suicide via her own interaction on the net using a cell phone, a game system, a neighbor's pc, a public pc, or just by hearing from her classmates what is being said about her online.

There is no form of "broadcasting" in our past that is in any way comparable to the wall to wall, 24/7/365 intensity of the internet, especially on a child.
 
Can someone be punished for what he did? I believe he was in Minnesota. If I agree with it is an entirely different matter though.

No, he was immune from criminal charges in the US -- he was arrested by Canada.
 
No, he was immune from criminal charges in the US -- he was arrested by Canada.

That is not what your link says.

He was found guilty of aiding a suicide under Minnesota law, which provides penalties for anyone who “intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other’s own life", punishment can be up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $30,000.[7][14][21][38] He was sentenced on May 4, 2011, to 360 days in jail.[39]
 
Now she was brainwashed somehow? When did that happen in the story? Though yes, your friends and classmates might know if you put your boobs on the Internet and people are all talking about it and sharing the pictures. Sometimes you do stupid ignorant things and you pay for them in this life and the Internet doesn't change that much. It just speeds up the delivery and makes it harder to control the damage.

Yes. The impact of the internet on an American child can be compared to any other form of mind control you like, including drugs.

I realize that you disagree with this characterization -- as so many parents of children who have suicided also disagreed. I know you will want to be persuaded I'm right and not just take my word for it.

However, I am 100% confident that if you look into this, you'll come to agree with me. And once you do, you'll also agree that using the net as a weapon to kill a child should be a criminal act.

 
That is not what your link says.

That article is out of date then, Henrin, and I apologize for not reading it more carefully first.

He was able to get the Minnesota conviction overturned on appeal, and was subsequently arrested in Canada. Minnesota then used the Canadian arrest to yank his nursing license.
 
Yet another country heard from.

If the parents had done everything within their power to protect this child, she still could have been driven to suicide via her own interaction on the net using a cell phone, a game system, a neighbor's pc, a public pc, or just by hearing from her classmates what is being said about her online.

There is no form of "broadcasting" in our past that is in any way comparable to the wall to wall, 24/7/365 intensity of the internet, especially on a child.

Logically, do you see suicide as being a logical choice by a reasonable person?
 
That article is out of date then, Henrin, and I apologize for not reading it more carefully first.

He was able to get the Minnesota conviction overturned on appeal, and was subsequently arrested in Canada. Minnesota then used the Canadian arrest to yank his nursing license.

Ok then, thanks for the information.
 
If an adult predator were able to lure a child into the woods and kill them, would you blame the child?

Obviously not.
Dear, we are not dealing in hypotheticals here, so thank you for answering your own question.
There are no similarities with your hypothetical and this case.



I can understand that some people have trouble grasping just how immediate, intense, global and overwhelming the internet can be to a child, but this is ignorance. Your inability to grasp that neither this child nor her parents were in control is just that -- ignorance.
Clearly, the ignorance is in what you are saying as underlined.


Any adult who seeks children on the net and then abuses that child to suicide is a murderer, plain as if they had shot that kid to death. The law needs to adapt to modern technology and treat the internet as the weapon it can be.
That isn't what happened in this case. So you are engaged in hyperbole.
She took her life because she was unstable.

Nor does this does not need to be made into criminal law. That is ridiculous.

And the proposed law that you later sighted, I hope fails miserably. It is not needed.
Just as in this case, the lady is not responsible for the other unstable person's death. Nor should she be.

All that is, is the current desire to blame others, "someone else is to blame", attitude.
Sorry, that doesn't fly.

There are already laws on the books to take care of the harassment and the assault in this case.
But the only person in this case who is responsible for her death is her. No one else.




Are you responsible for your actions when you are under the influence of a drug you did not consent to consume?

No?
Your hypothetical has no bearing on this case.
And we should really stick with reality.
Otherwise we will start seeing hypotheticals about teens being enticed into rape by the intoxicating effects of the way a girl dresses.

And I am sure you will see that just as absurd as I see this current effort to shift responsibility onto others, when clearly she is the only one responsible, just as the teens in the above hyp would be.



Then neither is that child.
Wrong!


You can disagree with me that the net is as powerful on a child's mind as a drug could be on you, and eventually, I believe I could persuade you.
No you couldn't. You are more than welcome to try, but you will not succeed in what you intend.
Puppy love is as intoxicating if not more so, yet it does not remove ones responsibility for there actions.

She is still responsible for cutting herself, for drinking bleach, for taking drugs on top of the internet even, and for taking her own life.
No one else.
Not even the interwebs.



But first you need to admit that a person is not responsible for their acts unless that person is also in command of their will and their mind.
Sorry dear. There is nothing to admit to here other than that she is responsible for her own actions.
And I have already admitted that. Numerous times even.



What is your motivation for this "brave stand for personal responsibility" you seem to be carving out for yourself here, Excon?
She is responsible for her own action. No one else.
Other than those trying to place blame where it does not belong, no none needs any motivation to state the truth.



You're getting blowback from every political lean on DP. Perchance you might consider if these people know a bit about this subject that, as yet, you do not.
There is not much more to know that would change her responsibility for taking her life.
She is solely responsible.



What amazes me if that no matter how serious the subject under discussion might be, "some people" are so willing to jack a thread so as to indulge a petty squabble and stroke their own ego.
You quote me and make such a comment when the other was the initiator and I the responder.
Strange to say the least.
But it clearly shows your bias.





Well that's it for me, I am through trying to reach this person.
And so it must be.
I guess I am also done trying to reach you.
She is responsible for her her actions. No one else.
Nothing you have said changes that.
Nor could it.
To bad you can't see that.





Should bullying be punished?
That was already addressed in an affirmative w/caveats.
 
Logically, do you see suicide as being a logical choice by a reasonable person?

A child suicides for different reasons than an adult does, ric, and the younger the child, the more true this is. The child will not usually grasp the finality of death, makes more mistakes about how much of a relief his death will be, cannot as easily articulate that he needs help, doesn't have the life experience to see that things can change for the better, etc.

Some of the kids who have been "bullied to death" on the net were as young as 9 years old. It's not possible to analyse their "choice to suicide" as you would an adult's.
 
Back
Top Bottom