Scary, scary, aren't we scary?
It's very hard to take you seriously, Mordea.
Especially when you are so blatantly dishonest.
Or when your comprehension of the issues you speculate about is so obviously narrow. To answer your question, it's not only worht considering in that scenario. Also, consider your sad, speculative tale about your fictional girlfriend; you've just repeated my own point to me, which is why I consider you dishonest.
Actually, the implications of your argument are worrisome. That you cannot comprehend the difference between a mundane stressor—e.g., relationship failing—and calculated cruelty is very suggestive about your motivation for defending such people. Perhaps you feel some kinship with the willfully cruel.
Kid gloves? You consider not going out of your way to be cruel "kid gloves"?
I mean, really, that's kind of sick in its own right.
True. Would you suggest all people are the same? Would you suggest one's brain chemistry is the same at age fifteen as, say, thirty-two?
Consider the implications of Roper v. Simmons, Mordea. Part of the court's reasoning for striking down the execution of offenders who were minors at the time of their crime is that the juvenile brain operates differently than an adult brain. The juvenile brain is, generally, considerably more unstable.
So if you have a number of potential stressors at to consider, by which criteria do you calculate the trigger?
Let me guess: months of calculated bullying that includes bodily harm can't possibly be it; maybe she spilled ice cream on her dress, and that's what did it.
I would also appreciate it if you would give some thought to murder statutes. Are you aware that most American jurisdictions include a murder statute that accounts for a victim's actions? Indeed, there is a "heat of passion" defense.
Sure, he might have caught you boffing his wife, but that doesn't make you responsible for his actions when he puts a kitchen knife through your throat while you're stumbling around trying to pull up your trousers.
He's not going to face death. He won't face Murder 1. And there is a reasonable chance that he will be acquitted.
Because of the actions of others. In this case, yours. And his wife's. But you, poor victim, will bear some culpability in your own demise.
There is a difference between abstract and applied logic, Mordea. I suggest you learn about it.
Mordea said:
Speculation. And even if someone with depression does kill themselves in response to a stressor, that does not make any individual who applied that stressor responsible for the outcome.
It's very hard to take you seriously, Mordea.
For example, let us say that I suffer chronic clinical depression, and my girlfriend chooses to break up with me. In response to this stressor, I take my own life. According to your logic, my girlfriend (who applied the stressor which agitated the condition) should be held liable for my suicide, as she exacerbated my mental illness.
Especially when you are so blatantly dishonest.
Why is mental illness only worth considering in that scenario?
Or when your comprehension of the issues you speculate about is so obviously narrow. To answer your question, it's not only worht considering in that scenario. Also, consider your sad, speculative tale about your fictional girlfriend; you've just repeated my own point to me, which is why I consider you dishonest.
Such implications are downright scary. Anyone who does not handle depressed individuals with kids gloves could be held liable for their suicide.
Actually, the implications of your argument are worrisome. That you cannot comprehend the difference between a mundane stressor—e.g., relationship failing—and calculated cruelty is very suggestive about your motivation for defending such people. Perhaps you feel some kinship with the willfully cruel.
Kid gloves? You consider not going out of your way to be cruel "kid gloves"?
I mean, really, that's kind of sick in its own right.
And yet many people who suffer persecution do not resort to suicide.
True. Would you suggest all people are the same? Would you suggest one's brain chemistry is the same at age fifteen as, say, thirty-two?
Consider the implications of Roper v. Simmons, Mordea. Part of the court's reasoning for striking down the execution of offenders who were minors at the time of their crime is that the juvenile brain operates differently than an adult brain. The juvenile brain is, generally, considerably more unstable.
Random depression could indeed cause suicide. Furthermore, *any* stressor could cause suicide. To the depressed mind, even minor stressors (such as saying stupid in public) could be blown out of proportion and used as a justification for suicide. Depressed people don't think rationally when they are having an episode.
So if you have a number of potential stressors at to consider, by which criteria do you calculate the trigger?
Let me guess: months of calculated bullying that includes bodily harm can't possibly be it; maybe she spilled ice cream on her dress, and that's what did it.
I would also appreciate it if you would give some thought to murder statutes. Are you aware that most American jurisdictions include a murder statute that accounts for a victim's actions? Indeed, there is a "heat of passion" defense.
Sure, he might have caught you boffing his wife, but that doesn't make you responsible for his actions when he puts a kitchen knife through your throat while you're stumbling around trying to pull up your trousers.
He's not going to face death. He won't face Murder 1. And there is a reasonable chance that he will be acquitted.
Because of the actions of others. In this case, yours. And his wife's. But you, poor victim, will bear some culpability in your own demise.
There is a difference between abstract and applied logic, Mordea. I suggest you learn about it.