- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,357
- Reaction score
- 986
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I wonder at what age does a child consider suicide.
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.
Clearly, the ignorance is in what you are saying as underlined.
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.
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.
Wrong!
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.
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.
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.
There is not much more to know that would change her responsibility for taking her life.
She is solely responsible.
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.
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.
That was already addressed in an affirmative w/caveats.
I wonder at what age does a child consider suicide.
I'm certainly no expert, but I would guess that younger children have a much higher suicide rate now than they did 20 years ago, and that the difference is almost entirely due to the net.
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.
I mean I don't think many people under 15 really knows what it means to commit suicide. I certainly had never thought about it until I was about 17.
I'm certainly no expert, but I would guess that younger children have a much higher suicide rate now than they did 20 years ago, and that the difference is almost entirely due to the net.
Ever sit a child in front of the television to get a moment's peace, Henrin?
Why does this work on virtually all kids? Because the tv mesmerizes them. Now, imagine if they could talk with the people on tv, so could all their friends, and that the tv followed them everywhere they went.
Imagine too, that the people on the tv were pedophiles with worldclass child manipulation skills.
This analogy doesn't entirely explain why the internet has been a game-changer -- but it's a start.
Due to the net? That's ridiculous
Ok, lets blame the person who invented the internet. :roll:
I've thought about this, but I really think this is criminal activity that our cops and prosecutors need to address.
Do you happen to know the Megan Meier case?
Megan was 12 when she went online (in her room) and joined MySpace, against her parents' instructions. There, she was befriended by what she believed was a 16 year old boy. For a few months, he romanced her, then suddenly, he rejected her and told she was a horrible person -- at great length.
Megan was 13 when she suicided.
After she died, her parents discovered the 16 year old boy was a hoax, and the real person behind the profile was their 43 year old neighbor, Lori Drew. Drew knew Megan not only as a neighbor but as her own 13 year old daughter's playmate -- and she knew Megan had been under a psychiatrist's care for serious depression for years. Drew evidentially was angry because she suspected Megan was no longer as interested in her child's friendship as she had once been.
When these facts emerged, the federal DA tried Drew and got a conviction under a computer fraud law, but this conviction was overturned on appeal.
As we sit here today, Drew's conduct remains perfectly legal, but a bill that would criminalize it is pending in Congress.
Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
I'd urge everyone reading this to contact their lawmakers and ask them to pass that bill.
I am not about make speach or writing unlawful in any context. Pinkie that law is an abomination. I will absolutely oppose it. Freedom of speach is THE most important right we have and I for one am NOT about to take the chance that the Supreme Court as it is today would throw the law out. Pinkie you got a kind heart. But this law can be used in such a malicous fashion that I shudder to think about it. The world is not full of right intended people. There are some evil mother****ers out there. But I will always take my chances with them before I give up a right. This law esstially defines speach. Once you down that road, there is little chance of retreat.
Amanda Todd's alleged tormentor named by hacker group - British Columbia - CBC News
The tragic story of B.C. teen suicide victim Amanda Todd has taken another bizarre twist as the internet hacking and activist group Anonymous has named a man the group says was the girl's primary tormentor.
You are certainly not alone in your concern, Pirate. I don't want crappy laws, either. I disagree that it is hopeless that we can criminalize only the behavior we abhore and leave all other speech legal, but I do not deny that if it can be done, it'll be a genius-level accomplishment.
Just because you believe that doesn't make it so.There are parallels, but I realize that if you have not studied on this, you might not know that.
Holy **** talk about whacked.If I arm you, then remote-control your body to cause you to shoot yourself in the head, were you murdered by me? Of course.
I'm saying the mind control of a child on the net is sometimes this powerful.
I have her actions. Clearly indicating she was unstable.R'ly? And you have which facts to back up your claim?
Because I can sure back up mine. BTW, is there a reason you want adults to be free to bully children over the net?
And wiser minds prevailed.Are you referring to Lori Drew? If so, a jury of her peers, a federal prosecutor, a US congressman and a few other million people disagree with you about her guilt for the death of Megan Meier.
When these facts emerged, the federal DA tried Drew and got a conviction under a computer fraud law, but this conviction was overturned on appeal.
As we sit here today, Drew's conduct remains perfectly legal, but a bill that would criminalize it is pending in Congress.
Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
I'd urge everyone reading this to contact their lawmakers and ask them to pass that bill.
WTF? Yes we do.No, there are not. Existing laws about internet conduct deal mainly with fraud.
I am not wrong, she is clearly responsible for her death. So I hope you never find out just how right I am.I hope you never have to know just how wrong you are.
I am sure you know that is psycho babel bull ****. You might buy into it, but others do not.No face to face interaction has the impact on a child that internet interaction has.
Holy ****, more none bearing hypotheticals. Figures.Shift responsibility? Were you free to murder children before the net was invented? Should a new murder weapon give you any more right to commit crimes with immunity?
iLOLThe mere fact that you are ignorant does not alter the reality that you are.
Likewise dear!I'm 100% confident that anyone who is not willfully ignorant can learn. Only you know whether or not this describes you.
Wow!You do seem to hate kids, and to be proud of that hatred.
Holy ****!This seems a tad repetitive; is there a reason you are so adamant in defense of those who murder children?
No there is not a great deal more to know. Because none of it changes who is responsible for her actions, as we all know, she is. Nothing changes that.There's a great deal more to know. I'm beginning to suspect you cannot or will not learn, but that'd be a personal problem of yours.
No it is not a trip, but clearly a deflection on your part.This entire reply is a trip.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. This entire reply is a trip.
And you are so far off base.Again, you seem oddly defensive of adults who harm kids.
WTF?Huh? After all this, you agree that internet bullying should be a crime when it results in a child's death?
A contest?This was a contest between slick, adult predators and one little girl.
Amanda Todd's alleged tormentor named by hacker group - British Columbia - CBC News
The tragic story of B.C. teen suicide victim Amanda Todd has taken another bizarre twist as the internet hacking and activist group Anonymous has named a man the group says was the girl's primary tormentor.
As I typed before - way to go Anonymous.
I love that organization.
Ah yes, Bullying is ok as long as it coincides with your wishes and desires.
Figures.
Gee look at that it fits what Anonymous did and intended to accomplish. Go figure, huh?Exposing an adult that (apparently) coerced and then blackmailed a young teenager to expose herself to him is your idea of bullying?
Noted.
BTW - here is one definition of 'bullying'
'Definitions
Bullying may be defined as the activity of repeated, aggressive behavior intended to hurt another person, physically or mentally. Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person.'
Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is strange is that you would say such when that isn't the case.It is strange that you keep defending the bullies and attacking/belittling the victims.
You seem to actually have quite an emotional attachment to do so.
Almost as if you are/were a bully yourself...not that I would dream of accusing you of such a thing.
Just sayin'....