Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2017, 01:03 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(10-09-2017 04:43 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  Welllll.. That would sure get quite a few trolls out of this forum I guess. Including some who have said some very similar things to others right here on this forum (more than likely to trolls) in the relatively short time I've been here. Paraphrasing: Why don't you just go kill yourself. Not quoting anyone specific. Paraphrasing from memory.

It was words. Not a gun. Not poison.

Which is apples and oranges. I don't know the people behind the internet alias. What they are saying might hurt me on some level, but it's inconsequential. It's not on the same level as some trusted confidant doing the same. That's the crucial point in the case in question. Their words can be weapons. Someone knowingly pushing another person over the edge.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(10-09-2017 04:48 PM)Coveny Wrote:  
(10-09-2017 04:43 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  ...Had they not been wanting to kill themselves already, I can hardly see how one adult could talk another adult into that. Still their own decision. ...

It was words. Not a gun. Not poison.

Have you done any reading on a fellow named Jim Jones in a city called Jonestown?

From what I recall, (I was 19 at the time so I remember some of the TV reports first-hand) his followers didn't realize at first that the kool-aid was poisoned. They realized it when people started dying. (So, having typed that first, I then referred to wikipedia and found this quote):
"Jim Jones previously had many rehearsals for the event in which the drink contained no poison, which led to cult members believing the drink was harmless on the day that it did contain poison."

So his words didn't kill them. Poison did.

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2017, 03:26 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2017 03:30 PM by abaris.)
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(11-09-2017 02:39 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  So his words didn't kill them. Poison did.

Ultimately his words did kill. Not only his followers but also the delegation coming to visit. The ones setting the whole mass suicide in motion. Same as Manson's words were responsible for the killing spree of his family. Same as the Heaven's gate mass suicide. Same as David Koresh and his followers

It's either an idealistic or naive view that words cannot be weapons under certain conditions. To say poison did it in the case of Jim Jones is on the same lines as someone holding a knife and claiming they didn't kill anyone, the knife did.

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like abaris's post
11-09-2017, 04:49 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(11-09-2017 02:39 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  So his words didn't kill them. Poison did.

I'd have to disagree with this.

One reporter wrote in part: "... the mass suicides were decidedly a mass murder, enacted through the use of psychological exploitation instead of physical force. As the leader of the religious group Peoples Temple, Reverend Jim Jones was responsible for the psychological massacre of his followers because of the manipulative means he used to demoralize and control them...

Jones’ personal charisma and his mesmerizing power as an orator were also alluring and believable; he had an intensity about him that made people believe anything he said [Parrish, Tina. "Leadership Styles: Martin Luther King vs. Jim Jones"]. Jones used this intensity to increase his control over his followers. He urged Temple inductees to sell their belongings and turn their assets over to the Temple—an act which, in effect, was the first step towards putting Jones in a position of significant power."

The cyanide-laced drinks and injections were only [sic ] the means to the end.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
11-09-2017, 04:54 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(10-09-2017 01:13 PM)SYZ Wrote:  In 1998, Wakefield published a case series in the Lancet, which suggested that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine may predispose to behavioural regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Despite the small sample size of 12 individuals, the uncontrolled design, and the speculative nature of the conclusions, the paper received global publicity, and MMR vaccination rates started dropping—because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination.

Immediately thereafter, epidemiological studies were conducted refuting Wakefield's posited link between MMR vaccination and autism. The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also disputed because a temporal (relating to time) link between the two is virtually predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood.

A subsequent admission by the Lancet was that Wakefield had failed to disclose financial interests (EG: Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct.

The Lancet did, however, retract Wakefield's paper, and offered a public apology for publishing it.

Quote:All this stuff poses two questions: Why was the disbarred Wakefield not jailed for medical malpractice and financial fraud,
Wakefield was deregistered after an inquiry by the British General Medical Council, which is a regulatory body for the medical profession, and not a grand jury or other entity that brings legal charges. The GMC imposed the harshest penalty it could, in deregistering Wakefield. For him to go to jail, someone would have to file criminal charges against him in a court of law.


Quote: and why do parents (even here in Australia) still accept Wakefield's lies about autism—and deny their kids the MMR vaccine? Sad

That's a whole different question.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
11-09-2017, 08:45 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
We agree to punish people for inciting a riot. We punish people who joke about killing the president. Words have power. It's easy to say the responsibility solely lies on the person who commit the act but the same people who make these type statements also tend to feel the majority of people are stupid. Ergo a stupid person being taken advantage of is his fault because they are stupid, and the instigator is free of responsibility. That doesn't seem moral or ethical to me at all. Obviously there needs to be personal responsibility, but there also needs to be responsibility on the incitor as well. The question in my mind, and the reason for this post. And that doesn't even go into the fact that many people will falsely confess to a crime during an interrogation because they get confused, just want it end, or whatever. So does that mean the person who committed the crime is free of responsibility because someone else confessed?

Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Coveny's post
12-09-2017, 05:21 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(11-09-2017 08:45 PM)Coveny Wrote:  Ergo a stupid person being taken advantage of is his fault because they are stupid, and the instigator is free of responsibility. That doesn't seem moral or ethical to me at all.
Maybe not, but it is kinda the way evolution gets rid of organisms unsuitable for passing on their genes.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2017, 08:08 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(12-09-2017 05:21 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(11-09-2017 08:45 PM)Coveny Wrote:  Ergo a stupid person being taken advantage of is his fault because they are stupid, and the instigator is free of responsibility. That doesn't seem moral or ethical to me at all.
Maybe not, but it is kinda the way evolution gets rid of organisms unsuitable for passing on their genes.

Since when is evolution by natural selection a correct guide for ethical treatment of individuals in a post-survivalist society?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
13-09-2017, 03:59 AM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(10-09-2017 05:32 PM)BnW Wrote:  Since when is evolution by natural selection a correct guide for ethical treatment of individuals in a post-survivalist society?

here here

Developing ForDebating.com that I hope to populate with intelligent critical thinkers. You can follow updates at https://www.facebook.com/fordebating
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2017, 03:32 PM
RE: Should convincing someone of a bad idea lead to prosecution?
(12-09-2017 08:08 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 05:21 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Maybe not, but it is kinda the way evolution gets rid of organisms unsuitable for passing on their genes.

Since when is evolution by natural selection a correct guide for ethical treatment of individuals in a post-survivalist society?

Are we in a post-survivalist society?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: