This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I agree. I just find that analogy lazy -- along with most other analogies. It's tiresome to watch people say "It's like..." and then reel off something which is nothing like it.
Analogies are easy ways for people to try to communicative a point, although it isn't always effective. I think part of the reason that the communication isn't well received is because the receiver (you) don't like the way the analogy portrays your position.But, it is a Jewish ritual, and as we all know, you cannot do anything to Jews without being called Hitler.
I bet I could give a Jew a high five without being called Hitler.
Post by
MyTie
But suicide isn't logical.
With very extreme exceptions, I agree. In some instances, it makes more sense than others. As far as this guy who killed himself because someone showed people him having sex, it makes NO sense. That is about as far from logical as you could be.
Post by
Adamsm
But suicide isn't logical. Ever. So how can you ever "logically" factor it into arguments like that? The way you frame it, it's impossible to argue against your statement.
I agree with this; and if a person makes someone else choose suicide, they should be dealt with in some manner.
Post by
MyTie
if a person makes someone else choose suicide
This is an impossibility, due to the very nature of suicide. You can definitely push the envelope, but there is quite a spectrum of envelope pushing. Just for sinepse, I'll give some examples, on a 1-10 scale:
I killed myself because someone:
1) Looked at me.
2) Gave me a poor tasting muffin.
3) Called me "dumb".
4) Spit on me.
5) Humiliated me.
6) Told me I should, and made a convincing argument.
7) Beat me up, and caused me to lose the use of my legs.
8) Caused me to contract a fatal and painful disease.
9) Threatened to kill 2 other people if I didn't commit suicide.
10) Gave me the choice of being slowly burned alive in a murder, or shooting myself in a suicide.
Notice on my scale, you cannot be forced to commit suicide. As far as my scale goes, this guy is a 5. The logical choice for suicide is greater and greater the farther you go. This is just one step above "spit on me". I don't think if someone spits on someone else, and that person commits suicide, that is in any way the first person's fault. That isn't the case here, but I feel the same way.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Since you asked for a surgical deconstruction
I didn't ask for that, and it wasn't my analogy. My point is you shouldn't want a ban on analogies all together.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't want a ban on analogies at all. Tell me where I said that.
I didn't mean you want an entire ban, but was just referring to your 1 day stay:I would just like to say that I think it would be great to have one day in the year when everyone observed a "Stay of analogies", because the number of times the legitimate argument device gets misused for the sake of straw men, deflection and general oversimplification brings its status as legitimate into disrepute.You've stated before you don't like the use of analogies, and often they are hair brained foul balls that make no sense, but I think they serve a great use in arguments. I don't think they are necessary, but they are nice to have around when you are having a problem illustrating your point straight out.
Post by
Squishalot
Sinespe - in response:
1) There is no necessary causal chain at the moment. Nothing in the article suggests that the guy is aware of the homophobe's actions. Even if he is, certainly, he is really bringing it on himself by a) staying with the homophobic roommate and b) continuing to have sex in front of the webcam that he should reasonably believe exists, based on this 'historic' behaviour that you've assumed up.
2) Adamsm thinks that a charge should be brought so that the guy is causally responsible for the death. What charge would that be, if not murder or manslaughter? As for what charge should be brought, I mentioned previously that he's not being charged for murder or manslaughter, and MyTie responded by saying that the discussion is about what SHOULD happen, suggesting that it's a consideration that he SHOULD be charged for either. Thus, the notion of introducing a murder / manslaughter charge is reasonable.
3) If you're criticising the idea of 'choosing not to stand up', consider it to be 'choosing to stay face down in the water'. The point is, the guy made a conscious choice to commit suicide. You can make a conscious choice to drown. The rational, logical, expected approach is to 'get up and breathe', just as the equivalent approach is to 'not kill yourself'. What you do otherwise (e.g. talking to authorities, pushing the guy back, flaying him and streaming it online) is unrelated to the analogy, which was purely focused on the choice to die.
As MyTie said - just because you didn't like how the analogy portrayed the argument doesn't make it a lazy analogy.
Post by
MyTie
Apparantly, the only reason
Alito will oppose affirmative action
, is he doesn't want too many non whites in college. The writer of this article explains that we have to use our hearts as much as our heads. He also explains that even though minorities that were less qualified and got admitted to the college, that since other white people got admitted, there is no case of racism. This is, of course, CNN, which is completely unbiased. Stuff like this, which obviously covers up the issue and tries to make out everyone as bigoted kind of makes me mad.
Post by
Squishalot
It's an opinion piece, not a news article. As in, that's the section of the website it's being written in. It's perfectly allowed to be biased.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
but instead resulted in the childish one-liner of a conclusion which promotes no mutual respect at all.
Coming from someone who, in the first place, dismissed the analogy as having taken less than 5 seconds to come up with, I find this to be quite hypocritical.
I saw the phrase "He brought it on himself". Which, frankly, just isn't worth the time.
I guess you didn't see the context it was stated in. That's your loss. In case you don't decide to go back and reread it, I wasn't referring to the bullying behaviour.
Post by
gamerunknown
It is not reasonable to kill yourself if people see you having sex on the internet.
Presumably he wasn't in a reasonable state of mind. We don't know the kind of background he has or the company he kept. If he hadn't come out to his family (who may oppose all premarital sex for all we know), he may have assumed that they wouldn't accept him, that his chances of employment were severed and possibly that any friends he kept would no longer trust him. His future looked grim. There was a possibility that it'd "get better" but homophobia is still prevalent in the US: in a sample of 500 teens from the US, Australia and Canada, 25% were physically attacked when they came out and 75% were verbally abused. In his situation, I'd at least contemplate suicide.
Post by
MyTie
homophobia is still prevalent in the US
I knew this was an eventuality. This simply, has NOTHING to do with this story. He was filmed having sex. I don't care if it was sex with himself, with a woman, with a man, with a watermelon, or with a porcupine. That is entirely his business and the filming of which is wrong. The beliefs of the perpetrator about the victim do not matter. It is his action that was harmful, not his belief, if his belief even was homophobic. in a sample of 500 teens from the US, Australia and Canada, 25% were physically attacked when they came out and 75% were verbally abused. In his situation, I'd at least contemplate suicide.
I was verbally abused in school for wearing the wrong sized pants. I was physically abused for no reason. I'd say if only 75% of homosexual teens are verbally abused, then they are doing really well. Certainly 1% is still wrong, but I was under the impression that nearly 100% of teens undergo verbal abuse.
Again, I'm not saying that being cruel to homosexuals is ok. I'm saying that being cruel to anyone is not ok, and the sexual status of the person is irregardless of the actual issue. I don't think, in my instance, kids should have been taught to be more accepting of my pants size. That's dumb. I think they should have been taught not to be cruel to me. That makes sense. Don't police kid's minds.
This isn't a homosexual issue. I think we need to look at this without emotion or biases. Our first emotional reflex is that the perp should get jail time for the death. However, upon logical thought, that isn't a good conclusion. Our first biased conclusion is to say that this is a homosexual issue, but that's really peripheral, and doesn't affect the issue itself.
I also don't like it when someone is beat up because of their race, and it becomes a race issue. The root cause may be racism, but racism isn't and shouldn't be a crime. Beating someone up should.
People should be able to be racist homophobic bigoted sexist rude pigs. I don't think they should, but I think they should be able to do that. I don't think they should do things that are crimes, though. I really dislike it when motive is used as a factor when determining criminal charges, beyond intent to commit crime, and evidence toward guilt of a crime.
Motive itself is NOT crime. As soon as we allow it to become crime, we hand government the key to censor and punish our thoughts. Do I approve of any thought, no matter how evil? Definitely not, but I'll fight for your right to think it.
Post by
gamerunknown
I didn't even suggest that the individual filming him should be held accountable for anything other than breach of privacy. That's a straw man.
It's impossible to ignore the surrounding context to provide some insight as to why this individual may have committed suicide though:
I was verbally abused in school for wearing the wrong sized pants.
Presumably not by your parents or individuals you trusted and relied on to care for you. Thought police are not necessary to reduce incidences of homophobic bullying, but basic education will probably help.
Motive itself is NOT crime.
From an epidemiological perspective however, removing the motive to commit crime reduces the instances of crimes.
Post by
Squishalot
I didn't even suggest that the individual filming him should be held accountable for anything other than breach of privacy. That's a straw man.
Not really - if it's reasonably foreseeable that the action would result in his suicide, then it's a case of criminal negligence involving death.
Post by
gamerunknown
Not really - if it's reasonably foreseeable that the action would result in his suicide, then it's a case of criminal negligence involving death.
Perhaps, but that wasn't an argument I was forwarding and thus arguing against it isn't really related to my post.
Isn't there a better term than "negligence" by the way? It would be the flatmate's action rather than failure to act that would cause to the suicide if such charges were to be considered.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.