Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Coveny » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:58 am

Intent is very important when it comes to prosecuting someone, but should that be enough to overcome giving advice that costs someone their lives? Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse. For this I’m going to assume these individuals believe they are giving good advice, and their intent is to help the individual they are giving the advice too.

For years, I’ve used this example. If I have a fly on my chest and your intent is to help me and kill the fly, but instead you kill me. This is an exaggeration, but the concept is still the same. Should good intent supersede harmful advice/action.

Just this year Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and half years for encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. The law seems to finally be moving in the direction of the results rather than the intent.

So at what line do you believe anti-science need to cross before the intent can be ignored, and the individual is punished for the results?
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:59 am

It's difficult to find the line Coveny. Posting an article about anti vaxxing is somewhat different to giving a cancer sufferer a "cure" that actually harms the cancer patient and achieves no benefit. In the later case I believe that the person giving the "cure" deserves some punishment.

It becomes very complicated and involved. The Michelle Carter case is one in point. I'm not fully au fait with the case, but if she did tell her boyfriend ti kill himself, then she deserves what she gets. If this guy had mental problems, then these suggestions could have been like giving him a gun and helping pull the trigger.

But let's turn this around. At least here in Australia, it has happened that when somebody is breaking into someone else's property with intent to commit a crime, and then falls and breaks a leg, they have successfully sued the victim. To me, that should never happen. If you are in the process of committing a felon, then you just gave up all your normal civil rights of protection.

Lets just say, that apart from a forum such as this one, I don't give advice unless I am asked for it. If we try to force our opinions onto others, it can leave the way open for results such as you outline.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:23 pm

ridiculous...she is not responsible...he was suicidal for months...he is responsible for his actions....if he killed himself 6 months later or a year later would the girl still be blamed???
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:54 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:But let's turn this around. At least here in Australia, it has happened that when somebody is breaking into someone else's property with intent to commit a crime, and then falls and breaks a leg, they have successfully sued the victim. To me, that should never happen. If you are in the process of committing a felon, then you just gave up all your normal civil rights of protection.


If the injury suit was successful, then there was negligence on the defendant's part. So, what you are saying is that the defendant should be absolved of responsibility for his actions, because of the intent of the plaintiff's actions. The way the law looks at it (the same ruling would pertain in a lot of countries), the B&E person is criminally responsible for B&Eing, and the negligent person is responsible for their negligence. One doesn't cancel the other.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Coveny » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:46 pm

While this debate could cover areas that don’t lead to deaths, for now I’m just trying to discuss where death occurred. On the point of Michelle Carter what if her intention to end his suffering? There are numerous cases where assisted suicide and mercy killings were prosecuted. Also with Michelle there is the aspect of free speech. How many times have you heard someone say something like “you should kill yourself” or wishing some form of death on another person. So, was the amount or persuasiveness of those statements that caused her to go to jail? Is it ok to say “The world would be a better place without you” once or twice… but at three times … that’s just too much? Or maybe it’s too much when you start listing their failures or maybe even how the world would be a better place without them, or that pain would end. And what about the type of pain as well? Pain from a breakup vs pain from a terminal illness are different situations.

Also, when there are accepted best practices and they aren’t followed we have no problem prosecuting people like Medical Malpractice. I think everyone agrees Doctors intentions is good but the results were bad and cost someone their life. Generally, though it’s only a loss of money, and takes repeated offenses before the doctor loses their license and no they are no longer able to practice medicine. There are rarely criminal charges brought against them, and they don’t serve any time in jail even if they are the cause of multiple people’s deaths. So, there is some precedence that recklessness and stupidity led to people going to jail regardless of intent.

But how incompetent, misguided, stupid, or reckless do you need to be? Does anyone have suggestions or ideas on where those lines should be drawn?
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:02 pm

people can be cruel...it is each person's responsibility to learn how to ignore stupid people...people were vulnerable to begin with...who knows what would push them too far?...they need to learn how to cope better...as all people do...I know a struggling guy who had people tell him he should kill himself...I told him there are lots of stupid people and to ignore them...he did and told me I changed him for the better...it is like bartenders held responsible for people who got drunk at the bar and had an accident ..or like arresting people because they didn't help someone in trouble.......insane nanny state laws......
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:40 pm

I only caught part of the taped conversation but my impression was Michelle Carter had the intent to encourage her friends suicide. My words: "She was stick and tired of his BS."

A huge difference between parents, girl friends, and anonymous posters on a forum is the position of trust and reliance. What a stranger in ignorance can do, a close confident should not be allowed to do.

I didn't pay attention because such cases are so rare as to not be interesting................. don't you agree?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I didn't pay attention because such cases are so rare as to not be interesting................. don't you agree?


What you find interesting is not up to me.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:10 pm

doesn't matter....she was horrible...he should have dumped her...he needed to learn to love himself instead of an idiot...he still made the decision....would have sooner or later likely...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:16 pm

Had to read up on the case, as I had not heard of it before.


Each person was responsible for the choices they made: he with causing his own death, her for negligence when she had the ability to intervene and keep him from dying. (The charge was negligent manslaughter, not murder).

Two things went against her:
1) she continued to encourage Roy to commit suicide even when he was not feeling suicidal.
2) she failed to intervene when he was in the act, but still capable of bailing, and she failed to solicit help from police or paramedics or anyone who likely could have intervened successfully.

I don't think legislation can justicially draw the line. I think that the most that legislation can do is to give the courts the opportunity to draw appropriate lines in specific cases. That's what happened here.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:20 pm

you can't stop someone from killing themselves ...they likely will eventually...they are negligent on themselves...so if he did kill himself a month later she would still be blamed???
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:21 pm

arrest all families and friends who have a member threatening suicide then...they are all negligent...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:25 pm

gorgeous wrote:you can't stop someone from killing themselves ...they likely will eventually...they are negligent on themselves...so if he did kill himself a month later she would still be blamed???

Only a small percentage of people who attempt suicide eventually succeed. In most cases, intervention permits people to give help, and for the suicidal person to get help and to make the changes needed to weather their emotional storm.

Most of them are not negligent on themselves, most of them are unable to see a pathway to their own well-being. Intervention gives them time and resources to find such a path.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:27 pm

arrest all those who watched Sinead O'Conners suicide message videos....hundreds of thousands...they all are negligent....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:28 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I didn't pay attention because such cases are so rare as to not be interesting................. don't you agree?


What you find interesting is not up to me.

That wasn't the question at all. Self centered that much????

IE: do you enjoy, or find interesting, cases of people you don't know unable to cope with the lives they create for themselves?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:31 pm

arrest Oleg for the suicide guy...he/she read it and did nothing...negligent...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Coveny » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:44 pm

Just to be clear it's not about "doing nothing" it's encouraging something that causes the death of another human being. (which is what this is about) Be that with Michelle, or cancer treatment. A dichotomy that it's either all or nothing is your position, I just consider it false, and there are many more options.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:50 pm

2) she failed to intervene when he was in the act, but still capable of bailing, and she failed to solicit help from police or paramedics or anyone who likely could have intervened successfully.
---------------------then arrest all crowds telling someone on a roof to jump....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:54 pm

arrest his family ...they didn't stop him...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:54 pm

Coveny wrote:Just to be clear it's not about "doing nothing" it's encouraging something that causes the death of another human being. (which is what this is about) Be that with Michelle, or cancer treatment. A dichotomy that it's either all or nothing is your position, I just consider it false, and there are many more options.


When I worked at the Crisis Centre (in the '90's), I followed Alt.Suicide.Holiday on Usenet. The posters were mostly people who had attempted suicide, plus some people who had a family member or friend who had attempted.
When anyone expressed the desire to die, the others were supportive that decision, and encouraged them to take the final step. However, when people expressed the desire to muck through somehow, the others were supportive and encouraging about that choice, too.

I don't think that simply encouraging a suicidal person to do what they most wish to do at that moment would be sufficient to cross the line, especially since some suicides are justified (an ALS sufferer wishing to end their life with dignity for example).

I wonder if the not-doing-anything would have had the same import if she had not encouraged Roy to suicide when he was not wanting to?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:55 pm

gorgeous wrote:arrest his family ...they didn't stop him...

When are you going to arrest yourself?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:17 am

Coveny wrote:Intent is very important when it comes to prosecuting someone, but should that be enough to overcome giving advice that costs someone their lives?
First, welcome to the forum, Coveny! Second, I think this is a fantastic issue for discussion.

While the concept of intent is built into our laws, we also recognize the concept of negligence when it leads to the same result. For example, we have both premeditated murder (with intent) and involuntary manslaughter (without intent, but with negligence) on the books as crimes. Crimes without intent are prosecuted on the grounds that the accused should have known his actions would lead to negative consequences (like operating under the influence).

Coveny wrote:Day after day I see people posting articles against vaccination, or promoting cures for cancer that either do nothing or makes things worse. For this I’m going to assume these individuals believe they are giving good advice, and their intent is to help the individual they are giving the advice too.
You are more generous than I. If the advice is being offered only in return for money, that fact negates the concept of good intent, IMO. The "perpetrator" is clearly attempting to profit from the suffering of people who are desperate for medical help, yet is offering nothing but "snake oil." If he is advertising that his product treats medical conditions, then he is committing a federal felony (in the US). And if it results in someone's death, he would also be charged with murder (because the link between his initial felony and the resulting death is demonstrable).

Coveny wrote:For years, I’ve used this example. If I have a fly on my chest and your intent is to help me and kill the fly, but instead you kill me. This is an exaggeration, but the concept is still the same. Should good intent supersede harmful advice/action.
Did I use a shotgun? :mrgreen: In this case, I am still responsible for killing you, even though it wasn't my intent. I assume the charge would be involuntary manslaughter, because my action was reckless and criminally negligent.

Coveny wrote:So at what line do you believe anti-science need to cross before the intent can be ignored, and the individual is punished for the results?
This is where the discussion becomes difficult. Perhaps it's best to look at a few examples, because I believe that it's impossible to set hard and fast rules. These are real world examples about which I've read.

Example #1
Vegan parents decide to restrict their newborn infant's diet to veganism. Unfortunately, they fail to consult their pediatrician regarding the nutrients necessary to a developing infant, and feed him inappropriately. The infant dies of malnutrition. Should the parents be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter? In this case, I believe they should, because they were wholly responsible for the well-being of the infant, who was unable to care for himself.

Example #2
A woman goes through a fast food drive-thru, orders a coffee, then places it between her thighs and drives away. The next time she has to step on the brakes, her thighs squeeze the cup and the top comes off, squirting hot coffee over her lap and causing her second-degree burns. Is the fast food joint responsible? Or is the woman? IRL, she successfully sued the fast food joint. IMO, she was a bloody idiot for attempting to drive with a cup of hot coffee between her thighs, and courts should not reward stupidity.

Example #3
A woman claims she can survive on air and sunlight alone...no water and no food. She writes books advocating this type of lifestyle to others. If other people actually follow her advice and die, is the woman responsible for their deaths? Or are the people themselves responsible for their own stupidity? What about the publishing company and the woman's agent? Or maybe the victims' parents should bear some of the responsibility for failing to raise them with common sense, although it's probable they weren't raised with common sense themselves. Tough call.

Example #4
A couple years ago, three people in my city died from fentanyl-tainted heroin. The dealer was found, and is being charged with three counts of felony murder. Is it fair to hold the dealer accountable when it's likely he had no idea his stash was tainted? Or is the fact that he was dealing a dangerous drug enough of a link to provide grounds for felony murder? That is to say, it would also have been felony murder had the three victims overdosed rather than been poisoned...but would the responsibility change in that case? (I should add that it's easy to sit back and judge that a heroin addict "made the choice" to use heroin, but I don't buy that BS. The stuff is both physically and psychologically addictive. They may have "made the choice" once; after that, the heroin was in charge.)

So, different examples, different ways to look at the situation. How can we simply draw a line and say, "Here, but no further?"
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:05 am

Gorgeous, you told us in one post that your intervention helped stop a suicide, then in another post you say that you CANNOT stop someone who wants to commit suicide.

Darling, be it gay or straight, you are bloody deranged! You are an idiot. Perhaps I should tell you to go and top yourself and leave us all in piece.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:10 am

As for this case, Oleg stated the following:
Two things went against her:
1) she continued to encourage Roy to commit suicide even when he was not feeling suicidal.
2) she failed to intervene when he was in the act, but still capable of bailing, and she failed to solicit help from police or paramedics or anyone who likely could have intervened successfully.


Therefore in this case, and this case alone, the defendant is guilty as charged. Her actions were totally irresponsible, and she failed as a normal human being by not acting to save somebody from death when it was in her power to do so.

How much more does one need to consider the question - again, in this case only.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby gorgeous » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 am

no telling if they still would imbecile
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:49 am

gorgeous wrote:no telling if they still would imbecile


You are bloody nuts Gorgeous!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:56 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:So, different examples, different ways to look at the situation. How can we simply draw a line and say, "Here, but no further?"

...........and yet we do it in every single case; you are either charged and prosecuted, or not. Mostly based on tradition.... with attitudes changing slowly over time..........like most of what hoomans do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:42 pm

gorgeous wrote:no telling if they still would imbecile
You are either using "imbecile" as a verb, which it's not, or you've omitted necessary punctuation. Reasons why the comma is important:

Let's eat Grandma. is an open suggestion to cannibalize your grandmother, while Let's eat, Grandma. is politely inviting your grandmother to dinner.

I like cooking my family and my pets. implies that you will star in the remake of Fatal Attraction, while I like cooking, my family, and my pets. expresses your positive feelings toward three things in your life.

You're welcome, ma'am.
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:46 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:So, different examples, different ways to look at the situation. How can we simply draw a line and say, "Here, but no further?"

...........and yet we do it in every single case; you are either charged and prosecuted, or not. Mostly based on tradition.... with attitudes changing slowly over time..........like most of what hoomans do.
Indeed, we do. What I'm saying is that it's impossible to make a general rule. We don't have one law for killing another human being; we have many different laws, each with its own specifications based on the circumstances of the individual case.

If someone breaks into my home and physically threatens me with violence, and I have no way to escape, and I shoot him dead, I have not "murdered" him. It would be considered self-defense. Yet if he killed me with a weapon he had brought with him, it would be premeditated murder. Same act, two different crimes.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:34 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:As for this case, Oleg stated the following:
Two things went against her:
1) she continued to encourage Roy to commit suicide even when he was not feeling suicidal.
2) she failed to intervene when he was in the act, but still capable of bailing, and she failed to solicit help from police or paramedics or anyone who likely could have intervened successfully.


Therefore in this case, and this case alone, the defendant is guilty as charged. Her actions were totally irresponsible, and she failed as a normal human being by not acting to save somebody from death when it was in her power to do so.

How much more does one need to consider the question - again, in this case only.


This case is an odd one, I still haven't sorted out my own opinion on it, I was relating the court's opinion.

If the prosecution's theory of the case was accurate - that the defendant deliberately goaded him into suicide to garner the sympathy that would come her way (a sort of Munchausen by Proxy), then she should have been institutionalized for her mental health.

Oh well . . .
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Coveny » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:11 am

It's possible to try to move someone in a direction that's in their best interest even if they aren't feeling that way. With her I don't believe that's the case, but I just don't feel like that's a good bar.

As I understand it her inaction was the reason as there are laws in place that state you should report a crime(suicide), which she did not. Do we really want the line to be inaction > persecution though? That's a whole other ball of wax outside of intent. I don't feel like simply being legal makes something moral or ethical. Take for instance the cases of parents giving their children pot for seizures, it working beautifully, and they still go to jail...
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:13 am

Coveny wrote:I don't feel like simply being legal makes something moral or ethical.
I couldn't agree more, Coveny. Frequently, laws are passed not for the benefit of the citizenry, but for the benefit of those in power. The cannabis debate is a perfect example of this...especially when you consider the factually dangerous things our government actually subsidizes!
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:57 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:So, different examples, different ways to look at the situation. How can we simply draw a line and say, "Here, but no further?"

...........and yet we do it in every single case; you are either charged and prosecuted, or not. Mostly based on tradition.... with attitudes changing slowly over time..........like most of what hoomans do.
Indeed, we do. What I'm saying is that it's impossible to make a general rule. We don't have one law for killing another human being; we have many different laws, each with its own specifications based on the circumstances of the individual case.

If someone breaks into my home and physically threatens me with violence, and I have no way to escape, and I shoot him dead, I have not "murdered" him. It would be considered self-defense. Yet if he killed me with a weapon he had brought with him, it would be premeditated murder. Same act, two different crimes.

What you note is "the line." Its like saying "Why can't there be one simple rule for chemical interactions?" Because there are lots of different chemicals just as there are lots of ways in which humans die/get killed.

By definition: you describe two completely different acts of homicide.

Everything is connected to everything else. Everything is different and the same as everything else. You add up the commonalities and the differences, apply values = strike a label: same or different, close enough for government work most of the time. Its the tough cases that look behind the label at those lists. A snotty thing to do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Coveny » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:48 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:So, different examples, different ways to look at the situation. How can we simply draw a line and say, "Here, but no further?"

...........and yet we do it in every single case; you are either charged and prosecuted, or not. Mostly based on tradition.... with attitudes changing slowly over time..........like most of what hoomans do.
Indeed, we do. What I'm saying is that it's impossible to make a general rule. We don't have one law for killing another human being; we have many different laws, each with its own specifications based on the circumstances of the individual case.

If someone breaks into my home and physically threatens me with violence, and I have no way to escape, and I shoot him dead, I have not "murdered" him. It would be considered self-defense. Yet if he killed me with a weapon he had brought with him, it would be premeditated murder. Same act, two different crimes.

What you note is "the line." Its like saying "Why can't there be one simple rule for chemical interactions?" Because there are lots of different chemicals just as there are lots of ways in which humans die/get killed.

By definition: you describe two completely different acts of homicide.

Everything is connected to everything else. Everything is different and the same as everything else. You add up the commonalities and the differences, apply values = strike a label: same or different, close enough for government work most of the time. Its the tough cases that look behind the label at those lists. A snotty thing to do.


And there are simple rules for chemical interactions aren't there? I'm not looking for some all encompassing rule, I'm looking for the simple rules that deal with various situations (just like in chemistry), if you want to get detailed knock yourself out, I find that interesting.
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:08 pm

Coveny: who are you talking to? Like chemistry and the law of homicide, this is "your" thread, subject to your own rules. Why not direct it to the reason you posted to begin with? You know: a little effort.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Coveny
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:47 pm
Location: Jacksonville FL
Contact:

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Coveny » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Coveny: who are you talking to? Like chemistry and the law of homicide, this is "your" thread, subject to your own rules. Why not direct it to the reason you posted to begin with? You know: a little effort.


This question "So at what line do you believe anti-science need to cross before the intent can be ignored, and the individual is punished for the results?" was talking to the forums. That's what "my" thread is about, and the reason I posted it to begin with.

Bobbo you responded with something like "A line can't be drawn, to prove this look at chemistry there are no lines there." I responded with "chemistry has lines, and that's what I'm looking for". For example adding a base to a acid lowers the concentration of base of a substance. To take your example and apply it to my question I'm looking for the point that an action (adding a base) changes from the chemical being an acid to being a base, or how much misinformation does it take to change a person from what they were to what you want them to be, and when is the moral/ethical point that we punish them? So if you put a little base in, but they are still an acid it's ok, but if you put so much base in that they become a base you have changed them, and should be held accountable.

Admittedly the chemical analogy is forces and doesn't flow well, but I'm trying to keep it to the rules you wanted. As for the rules of the debate, I have presented none. This is an open debate and you can approach the topic any way you like. I would say that by it's nature there are implied rules that your responses should be on topic, and a certain level of civility should be maintained as people disagree, but both of those "rules" are broken rather commonly in the debates I've been a party too...
Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:30 pm

my point clearly stated is that there is no ONE SIMPLE line....but rather many lines as befits the subject.

There is rarely a debate in these forums. Sometimes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby Nikki Nyx » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:06 pm

Bobbo, I believe we may be on the same page, but merely misunderstanding one another via misinterpretation.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:By definition: you describe two completely different acts of homicide.
Exactly the point I was making. The basic act is the same: the killing of another human being. But the circumstances are so drastically different that we require the law to address those circumstances...by having more than one law. We cannot simply draw a line and say that "Killing another human being is wrong."

It's not "wrong" when I'm defending myself and my family from a murderous thug who leaves me no choice. By attacking me with murderous intent, and refusing to stop, he forced me into the position of having to kill him. In this case, it's just as valid to say that the murderous thug committed suicide. :mrgreen:

So, I believe we are making the same argument here...that we cannot simply draw a line and call it a day in any situation. I'm sure I've posted in this forum previously that it's my belief that ethics are situational. If I recall correctly, the example I gave was of a person who refused to commit violence in a situation where a criminal was about to kill his child. Does the pacifist stand by and do nothing, thereby becoming accountable for the murder via inaction? Or does he act to stop the murder of his child, thereby becoming a killer himself? Either way, he ends up shouldering responsibility for at least one murder. If he chooses inaction, probably more than one.

So my original question—How can we simply draw a line and say, "Here, but no further?"—says, in effect, that it's impossible to make such a generalization. As always, the facts and circumstances of each individual case must be taken into consideration...hopefully by rational people absent confirmation biases and agendas.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:42 pm

Nikki: we agree. "its definitional" as it almost always is. We should be able to form a single statement of the law that would differentiate between murder and self defense but it would be long and convoluted. Note that a law regarding killing a human being does not differentiate between killing a human being or an animal or someone terminal or the jay walking laws on Sunday. Each law stands on its own and does not nor should make simple distinctions with all other laws..... heh, heh.....WE WANT a whole bunch of seperately stated laws OTHERWISE we would only have one big hung law going on for book after book. Simple vs differentiating? Why should the law of self defense be written so as to mention its differentiation from the law of indefensible intentional murder?

"The basic act is the same..." //// Is that the nub??? What act is that? The act of defending ones self in ones home, or the act of securing a weapon and entering the home of another? What "act" is at isssue?

I understand some bibles quote god saying thou shalt not kill (the simple rule) while others more of my bent say thou shall not murder. Both rules are simple......but what act is of interest?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?

Postby digress » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:56 pm

You use a 'fly on the chest' example in your opening statement. This problem is a double edged sword. Today, millions of Christians living within the USA believe they'll be reunited with their maker in heaven after death and that heaven is the ultimate paradise. The absolute best place to be. If I care in any way then shouldn't it be my intent to help these people achieve their goals? If I truly cared, and this is what friends/family spoke as truth, then isn't it wrong of me to sit back watching them suffer? In this example, based off the premise of the intent of speech being guilty, I'd be innocent of murder because the intent of their speech is precisely my motivation to act.

This is why the entire case presented for the speaker being responsible for the act is poorly thought out and is child-like philosophy. The real issue here is; Why are we regressing as a nation on the importance of speech?

To turn back around. If I'm closely involved with someone and they begin telling me to kill myself, ignoring my plea to stop, I've every opportunity afterwords to separate myself from that person. Severing all communication. If I do not then it doesn't matter what their intent was because I'm an arrogant fool for sticking around. Arrogant for thinking this kind of interaction is healthy in my life and a fool for not taking the opportunity to move on.

Mentally ill candidates may be a situational case where it might be argued they cannot be held responsible for their own actions and therefore the speaker is responsible. But you'd have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ill victim was in-fact incapable of dealing with the situation in a responsible way.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest