• 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]

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.

There are parallels, but I realize that if you have not studied on this, you might not know that.

Clearly, the ignorance is in what you are saying as underlined.

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.


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.

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?


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.

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.

There are already laws on the books to take care of the harassment and the assault in this case.

No, there are not. Existing laws about internet conduct deal mainly with fraud.

But the only person in this case who is responsible for her death is her. No one else.

I hope you never have to know just how wrong you are.

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.

No face to face interaction has the impact on a child that internet interaction has.

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.

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?


The mere fact that you are ignorant does not alter the reality that you are.

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.

I'm 100% confident that anyone who is not willfully ignorant can learn. Only you know whether or not this describes you.

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.

You do seem to hate kids, and to be proud of that hatred.

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.

This seems a tad repetitive; is there a reason you are so adamant in defense of those who murder children?

There is not much more to know that would change her responsibility for taking her life.
She is solely responsible.

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.

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 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.

Again, you seem oddly defensive of adults who harm kids.

That was already addressed in an affirmative w/caveats.

Huh? After all this, you agree that internet bullying should be a crime when it results in a child's death?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

 
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.

Before 2000, I had only heard of one child suiciding at age 9; now, it seems you cannot open a newspaper and not read about it.

It's a goddamned epidemic.
 
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.

Due to the net? That's ridiculous
 
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.


Ok, lets blame the person who invented the internet. :roll:
 
Due to the net? That's ridiculous

I don't know if she is right or not (I suspect she is, at least partly).

But before calling her statement 'ridiculous', maybe you could supply some reasons as to why it is 'ridiculous'?
 
Ok, lets blame the person who invented the internet. :roll:

What good would that do? Do you blame Nobel for every murder committed with a gun? Do you blame Einstein for every murder committed by atomic poisoning?
 
I think as a girl it must be harder. I got past bullying by being a 6'1 wrecking machine and I just beat ass. My youngest brother had it rough but he can't harm a fly. Me, I've broke noses, arms, and ruined others **** over much less than this girl took. I was designed to not take **** from anyone and that's carried on into adulthood. It helps out, but unfortunately gets you into trouble too.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

The problem Pinky, with this law is it regulates speach. It is suprisingly simple for a law none the less, it is incredibly bad law. Who ever wrote it did not bother to look at the constitution. If they did the law would be a whole lot diffrent, if it even existed. i live by the philosophy that in order for freedom to florish the stupid must be allowed to be stupid, despite the costs, for in the end I believe that those costs will be more than made up for by other less more inteligent people who learn from the stupid what NOT to do, which is just as important, maybe more so than knowing what to do. That may sound cruel but in the end, I believe everyone has a purpose even if it is to be the idiot who sticks their hand in a blender while it running. (I actually saw someone try that move, they are lucky I interviened quickly. Believe it or not they were offended that I did. I suppose no good deed goes unpunished.)
 
There are parallels, but I realize that if you have not studied on this, you might not know that.
Just because you believe that doesn't make it so.

Like I said. Leave the hypotheticals out of this.
They have no bearing



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.
Holy **** talk about whacked.
Bs!


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?
I have her actions. Clearly indicating she was unstable.
And all of those kids out there who don't take their life as a result of similar circumstances.
Do you deny they exist?

What do you have?



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.
And wiser minds prevailed.
The millions of emotional were wrong.


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.
See wiser minds prevailed. She shouldn't have been charged in the first place.

And I would urge people do the exact opposite. Demand they defeat it.

And if passed, hopefully wiser minds will prevail again, and strike it.
We do not need such a law with up to two year penalties.



No, there are not. Existing laws about internet conduct deal mainly with fraud.
WTF? Yes we do.
We already have laws on the books against assault, do we not?
We already have laws on the books against harassment, do we not?

Any of those laws can be modified if they need to specifically cover the elements involved with the internet.




I hope you never have to know just how wrong you are.
I am not wrong, she is clearly responsible for her death. So I hope you never find out just how right I am.
Oh, wait a minute, you wouldn't find out because you still would want to blame someone else.
Oh well.




No face to face interaction has the impact on a child that internet interaction has.
I am sure you know that is psycho babel bull ****. You might buy into it, but others do not.
She is solely responsible for her actions. No none else.



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?
Holy ****, more none bearing hypotheticals. Figures.

Stick with reality.
By placing blame on others you are trying to shift her responsibility.
She made that decision. No one else did. No one twisted her arm, no one cajoled her, and no one talked her into it.
She is the one who made that decision all on her own.



The mere fact that you are ignorant does not alter the reality that you are.
iLOL
The ignorance was all yours.
Which is why you were wrong.
Your hypothetical does not apply.



I'm 100% confident that anyone who is not willfully ignorant can learn. Only you know whether or not this describes you.
Likewise dear!
The only thing that needs to be learned here is that she is solely responsible for her actions. No one else.



You do seem to hate kids, and to be proud of that hatred.
Wow!
Besides your absurd tactic, admitting the truth that she is responsible for her actions, is now hatred of kids?
A person's thoughts have to be severely convoluted to even say such a thing.
But I can see you are again straying and choosing to try and discuss me rather than the topic.
What a shame.



This seems a tad repetitive; is there a reason you are so adamant in defense of those who murder children?
Holy ****!
Excuse me?
I haven't defended such.
And your hyperbole is noted.
No wonder you can not grasp the reality of her responsibility. You think she was murdered.

Let me clue you in so you know. She committed suicide. That means she took her own life.
Hope that clears it up for you.
If not, do you need a linky say she committed suicide?

As for your "repetitive comment" - you asked why, and I told you why.
Don't try to claim it is repetitive when you asked for it.



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 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.
You don't get to come along and say; Well gee, I think she was under the intoxicating effect of the internet, so she is not responsible for taking her own life.
That bull**** doesn't fly.
Just as if she had instead chosen to take the life of her previous assaulter, or that of her previous harasser, and not her own, she would be responsible, and you know it. It doesn't simply change because it was her own life. She is responsible. Period.



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.
This entire reply is a trip.
No it is not a trip, but clearly a deflection on your part.


Again, you seem oddly defensive of adults who harm kids.
And you are so far off base.
But sadly, you do want to hold responsible those who are not.
If you do not understand that, it means you are wrong.
Stating that she is responsible for her actions of taking her own life is not in any way shape or form being defensive of adults who harm kids.
But thanks for the foolish comment. It is a great sign that the poster has lost the argument when they start focusing on the other poster instead of the subject.



Huh? After all this, you agree that internet bullying should be a crime when it results in a child's death?
WTF?
Do you not read what comes before when you decide to participate in a topic?
Regardless of your ignorance, it does not change the fact that she is responsible for taking her own life.

As for your question. No. Especially not in this case.
I would oppose any such legislation, because the individual is responsible for taking their own life. Not some bogeyperson on the internet.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Ah yes, Bullying is ok as long as it coincides with your wishes and desires.
Figures.

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


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'....


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
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
Gee look at that it fits what Anonymous did and intended to accomplish. Go figure, huh?
Of course it is Bullying, and even though what they did was wrong you still obviously supported it it because it coincides with with your wishes/desires, thoughts/feelings on the matter.
 
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'....
What is strange is that you would say such when that isn't the case.

And doing so while supporting the wrong and Bullying actions of Anonymous.
How sad.

Likewise. Have a great day. And while you are at it, have a coke and a smile.
 
Back
Top Bottom