[Moderated] Invasion of privacy leads to teen suicide - Page 6

Normal Dude · 2nd October 2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

And people criticize me when I say that invasion of privacy isn't a serious issue...

Except of course that nobody criticized you for that.

LibraryLady · 2nd October 2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for quote of modded post.

I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help.

kerikiwi · 2nd October 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help.

Ditto

alfaniner · 2nd October 2010, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for quote of modded post.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

cwalner · 2nd October 2010, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

I'm not particularly grossed out by two attractive people of the same sex having sex, but two elderly people having sex? That grosses me out to think about.

Ageist!!!

Schrodinger's Cat · 2nd October 2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

Ageist!!!

cornsail · 2nd October 2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Edges

I never said it was, nor did I say that it should be shared by other people. I recognize that there are different consequences for different scales of actions. If I tell a lie, no matter the scale, I don't pretend that I wasn't performing an immoral action, based on my moral philosophy. I recognize that the consequences may not be as bad.

But I keep saying I'm not arguing whether an immoral action was performed or not. I'm saying certain actions are more immoral than others. Certain invasions of privacy are worse than others. Doesn't make the more minor ones "okay". Certain thefts are more immoral than others. Doesn't make the minor ones not theft.

Quote:

So no, your logic in applying my moral philosophy doesn't make sense. What if you stole that quarter from a homeless person? What if was that person's last quarter? How then, is that not as bad as stealing the live savings of the old lady? The consequence is the same.

I said that according to your moral philosophy stealing a quarter is just as morally wrong as stealing an old lady's life savings. Here you seem to be arguing in support of that position. So why do you say my logic in applying your moral philosophy doesn't make sense?

Quote:

That is why I do not consider the scale of the consequence before I determine if an action was wrong. Because there are too many factors that can change that scale. Is it not wrong to steal a dollar from a millionaire? The scale of the consequence determines how much the person deserves to be punished.

Again, I'm not arguing that minor transgressions are "not wrong". I'm arguing that they are less wrong. The scale of consequences do not necessarily determine how much a person deserves to be punished, but they can be a factor.

Quote:

Never said you did. But you do seem to connect the scale of the consequence to determining if an action with one consequence was "worse" than the same action with a different consequence. I don't that makes sense.

I don't consider spying on someone making out the same action as spying on someone having sex.

Quote:

I disagree. The reason they broadcast the image was to put a gay man up for ridicule. They were encouraging homophobic behavior. If they were not putting it up for people to make fun of the gay man, why did they do it?

I said "Ravi and Wei were not the only ones ridiculing him ... Of course, that doesn't mean Ravi and Wei weren't the most guilty parties ... "
(bolding added)

What do you disagree with?

Quote:

Of course there are grey areas. The consequences determine the punishment. Thus, a person who steals less than another person should not recieve the same punishment. That doesn't mean that what they did wasn't wrong or that the other person did something wronger.

So there are grey areas in consequences and in punishment, but not in the degree of wrongness of the action.

Quote:

However, we have given you reasons for thinking the way we do. With the exception of Fin McR, we have told you why we don't think the details matter. Is that not reasonable discourse?

I just find it an odd response. People should get the facts right. Do you disagree? I have no problem with people giving reasons why they think those details don't matter, but I get the sense that is being used as an excuse for factual inaccuracy or some kind of resistance to any factual corrections that make the perpetrators look less bad than they did originally.

Quote:

You said earlier that I was frustrated with your reactions. I'm not frustrated. I just think it's pointless to argue that issue with you further. I don't know you, will probably never meet you, and I've explained my argument on that as throroughly as I can or care to. There is nothing further to be gained.

I assumed you were frustrated because you half-accused me of intellectual dishonesty (deliberately misreading your posts). I was trying to be polite by saying it was understandable you might let something like that out out of frustration.

Quote:

You want people to be accurate for accuracy's sake. Fine, whatever.

I love your enthusiasm.

Quote:

That does not mean we cannot discuss the issues that are brought up by this case, whatever the facts are.

I haven't said otherwise.

Quote:

You think accuracy for accuracy's sake is important, but what does that have to do with discussing whether it is wrong to invade someone's privacy or betray their trust? I see this as being more than about this particular case, with this case being a reference point.

I never said factual accuracy being important has something to do with "discussing whether it is wrong to invade someone's privacy or betray their trust".

Quote:

ETA I will also note that saying, "if this were this way, wouldn't it change this?" is not accuracy for accuracy's sake.

Have I claimed it to be?

Uncle Otto · 2nd October 2010, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

You should leave that church too.

I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

Just sayin.

Uncle Otto · 2nd October 2010, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

wow...sounds like bigotry to me. and an extreme level of discomfort with even the idea of homosexuality.

tell me, danrush....have you ever kissed a man? ever thought about it?

Of course he has. Watch out though, he now probably has the hots for you. Bloody hell, what a closet case. Kind of reminds me of this guy---an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Michigan no less. He decided to single out a boy who got elected president of the student council at the University of Michigan----for no apparent reason other than that he is gay. Anderson Cooper interviews him on CNN. Christian loving kindness, you gotta love it, this guy is another self hating closet case---------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLEyM...1&feature=fvwp

Can you say------Ted Haggard?

LibraryLady · 2nd October 2010, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

Of course he has. Watch out though, he now probably has the hots for you. Bloody hell, what a closet case. Kind of reminds me of this guy---an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Michigan no less. He decided to single out a boy who got elected president of the student council at the University of Michigan----for no apparent reason other than that he is gay. Anderson Cooper interviews him on CNN. Christian loving kindness, you gotta love it, this guy is another self hating closet case---------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLEyM...1&feature=fvwp

Andrew Shrivelled? I thought about that immediately. Robert Bauman all over again.

Edges · 2nd October 2010, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by cornsail

Again, I'm not arguing that minor transgressions are "not wrong". I'm arguing that they are less wrong. The scale of consequences do not necessarily determine how much a person deserves to be punished, but they can be a factor.

I'm not going to spell out my philosophy again. I understand that this is what you are arguing and I have spelled out why I don't agree. In the end, we come to the same conclusion. Mr. Ravi did something wrong. The facts will determine how he is to be punished, if at all, for it. The facts won't change whether he did something wrong or not.

Quote:

I don't consider spying on someone making out the same action as spying on someone having sex.

I disagree. But I already know you think this.

Quote:

I said "Ravi and Wei were not the only ones ridiculing him ... Of course, that doesn't mean Ravi and Wei weren't the most guilty parties ... "
(bolding added)

What do you disagree with?

The part you didn't repeat, which was that they weren't responsible for the other people's homophobic comments. No, they did not make those other people say it, but they encouraged it. They bear some responsibility for that in the same way that a person who incites someone else to violence bears some responsibility for the violence.

Quote:

I just find it an odd response.

Why? If it doesn't change the argument, it doesn't matter.

Quote:

People should get the facts right. Do you disagree? I have no problem with people giving reasons why they think those details don't matter, but I get the sense that is being used as an excuse for factual inaccuracy or some kind of resistance to any factual corrections that make the perpetrators look less bad than they did originally.

Sure, people should get the facts right. But if it doesn't affect what they are talking about, or change what they have asserted, it doesn't matter. If, under the law, sexual activity includes heavy petting, then it may be correct to point out that they were "merely" making out and not engaged in intercourse, but it doesn't matter.

You may feel that way, but why? There is really nothing that would change my opinion that Mr. Ravi did something wrong. Since I think actions are absolute, it can't be "less wrong". I could be convinced that the consequences are less severe, but you haven't been arguing that. I can concede that having someone see one picking one's nose, for most people, is not as humiliating as being seen having sex. But there is still an invasion of privacy which is absolute.

You seem to have been misinterpreting what I said earlier about having someone broadcast me picking lint out of my toes being no less upsetting than being broadcast having sex. I'd certainly be more humiliated in the latter. However, I'd be just as upset that someone violated my privacy in either case. Somebody tried to humiliate me. The wrongness of this is not dependant on their success.

Quote:

I assumed you were frustrated because you half-accused me of intellectual dishonesty (deliberately misreading your posts). I was trying to be polite by saying it was understandable you might let something like that out out of frustration.

Or it could be because I thought I had made myself clear on that issue and you kept going back to it as if you were saying something new about it. I was pointing out that either way, it was pointless for me to continue arguing that point. If you thought I was being accusatory, I apologize. However, it was not out of frustration and I don't find it "polite" to assign people emotions so you can pat them on the head say, "I know you don't mean that, dear." And, to be clear, I am suggesting that I think you were being patronising.

Quote:

I never said factual accuracy being important has something to do with "discussing whether it is wrong to invade someone's privacy or betray their trust".

You are suggesting that I'm hand-waving away the importance of certain facts as an "excuse" not to see Mr. Ravi in a worse light. Since I have been discussing the wrongness of invading someone's privacy or betraying their trust, you are suggesting that accuracy of the facts in this case is important to that discussion. It isn't.

At this point, I think I've said all I can say. I am just going to agree to disagree with you and accept that you think my moral philosophy is absurd. It's been an interesting discussion, but I am bowing out now. There is nothing I can write about this that I haven't already.

cwalner · 2nd October 2010, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

Just sayin.

I see your point for becoming Christian (or any religion for that matter), but for those who remain in churches, even those overtly anti-gay, it is much more complicated.

For many, a church provides a sense of community that people don't find elsewhere. For somebody who was raised in a church, that sense of community is strongly ingrained. Separating yourself from a community that you have been part of your entire life is extremely difficult emotionally, even if that community is overtly opposed to one aspect of who you are.

Thunder · 2nd October 2010, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

ehh...not exactly.

there are maybe 2 versus in the NT against homosexuality, and maybe 5 more in the OT.

clearly, when it comes to sin, gays were not the main focus of the Prophets or the Apostles.

why then, does it seem to be such a big deal within Christian communities in the USA and elsewhere? cause we are a bunch of self-righteous, flaggilating, prudish fools, who are very insecure about our bodies and our sexuality.

cornsail · 2nd October 2010, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Edges

I'm not going to spell out my philosophy again. I understand that this is what you are arguing and I have spelled out why I don't agree. In the end, we come to the same conclusion. Mr. Ravi did something wrong. The facts will determine how he is to be punished, if at all, for it. The facts won't change whether he did something wrong or not.

I understand your philosophy. It just seems you're arguing that Mr. Ravi did something wrong at times, when I haven't disputed that, so I was clarifying.

Quote:

Why? If it doesn't change the argument, it doesn't matter.

Sure, people should get the facts right. But if it doesn't affect what they are talking about, or change what they have asserted, it doesn't matter. If, under the law, sexual activity includes heavy petting, then it may be correct to point out that they were "merely" making out and not engaged in intercourse, but it doesn't matter.

It matters when people spread misinformation about someone on a public, searchable forum in my opinion. And it matters to get things right so that others who may disagree with you that it doesn't change the argument aren't confused.

Quote:

You seem to have been misinterpreting what I said earlier about having someone broadcast me picking lint out of my toes being no less upsetting than being broadcast having sex. I'd certainly be more humiliated in the latter. However, I'd be just as upset that someone violated my privacy in either case. Somebody tried to humiliate me. The wrongness of this is not dependant on their success.

Yes, I misunderstood this initially. I understand it now.

Quote:

Or it could be because I thought I had made myself clear on that issue and you kept going back to it as if you were saying something new about it. I was pointing out that either way, it was pointless for me to continue arguing that point. If you thought I was being accusatory, I apologize.

You apologize that I thought you were being accusatory or you apologize for suggesting that I was being deliberately intellectually dishonest?

Quote:

However, it was not out of frustration and I don't find it "polite" to assign people emotions so you can pat them on the head say, "I know you don't mean that, dear." And, to be clear, I am suggesting that I think you were being patronising.

Okay, well if you did mean it then I think it was unfair and don't appreciate it. How do you want me to respond to something like that?

Quote:

At this point, I think I've said all I can say. I am just going to agree to disagree with you and accept that you think my moral philosophy is absurd. It's been an interesting discussion, but I am bowing out now. There is nothing I can write about this that I haven't already.

Yes, to each their own. Cheers.

saraban · 2nd October 2010, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

Just sayin.

I'm a member of a gay forum and the answer is they believe God loves them.

Roadtoad · 2nd October 2010, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You have GOT to be joking! What kind of a place is America? I'm sorry, I know that sounds sweeping, but I simply cannot imagine any preacher of any denomination in Britain making a remark like that in public.

Actually, when I visited America in 2008 I attended church twice with my hosts, and was very favourably impressed by the spoken content of the services (the "music" was diabolical, mind you). The sermons were far more erudite and thoughtful than I'm used to. So maybe I'm being unfair by generalising.

But I'm simply gobsmacked. What sort of a "church" is this?

Rolfe.

I wish I were, Rolfe. My son will be moving in with my wife and myself once our house closes escrow, in part because my idiot BiL says much the same thing, and right at this moment, my son is renting a room from said relation.

Okay, it's time. Doug -- Idiot BiL -- is an outright bigot, a hater, and a raving homophobe. I am not comforted that, as he's put it, my son is safe because he owns guns. I am terrified that once he finds out my son is gay, he'll pop a couple of rounds into my son's head "for his own good," as he's sometimes said should happen. Trust me: If you remember SunniMan at all, Doug and that troll would get along famously. He can't understand why, as an employee of the State of California, he can't get promoted. Telling him only starts a fight, so I just don't try anymore.

On more than one occasion, I've found myself telling other drivers they were out of line in some of their homophobic rants against gays and lesbians. I'm not Mr. Popularity in some truck stops, but I'm of the opinion that it needs to be said. That there are "ministries" that promote violent acts against gays and lesbians, in the name of "cleaning house," is painfully well known. The problem is that rarely do you get someone like my son's former pastor being so open about his hate.

Roadtoad · 2nd October 2010, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

You should leave that church too.

Never attended it. And became an atheist a while ago. So, I'm clear of it.

Roadtoad · 2nd October 2010, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help.

Classy response to a highly disgusting post.

Thanks, LL.

INRM · 2nd October 2010, 08:25 PM

Normal Dude,

Maybe not on this thread, but I've been criticized many times in other threads, often pertaining to privacy issues.

cwalner · 2nd October 2010, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

Never attended it. And became an atheist a while ago. So, I'm clear of it.

Is your son still attending, though?

I ask because I am concerned for him. When in college, I was seeking something spiritual to fill the void. as an ethnic Jew, I turned to Judaism and became involved with a conservative synagogue. This did not turn out so well, because their attitudes regarding homosexuality was less than enlightened (though not as forward as the church you mention).

It took some time, and I finally left, realizing that that synagogue, and religion in general was not what I needed to fill my life.

The problem was that in the meantime, I went deeper into the closet and developed some self-loathing because of the disapproval of homosexuality in the group I had become a part of. This took a fairly heavy emotional toll on me, and even now, 20 years later, I occasionally feel the scars from then still.

Please, use my story as a cautionary tale, and do what you can to help your son avoid something similar.

Roadtoad · 2nd October 2010, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

Is your son still attending, though?

I ask because I am concerned for him. When in college, I was seeking something spiritual to fill the void. as an ethnic Jew, I turned to Judaism and became involved with a conservative synagogue. This did not turn out so well, because their attitudes regarding homosexuality was less than enlightened (though not as forward as the church you mention).

It took some time, and I finally left, realizing that that synagogue, and religion in general was not what I needed to fill my life.

The problem was that in the meantime, I went deeper into the closet and developed some self-loathing because of the disapproval of homosexuality in the group I had become a part of. This took a fairly heavy emotional toll on me, and even now, 20 years later, I occasionally feel the scars from then still.

Please, use my story as a cautionary tale, and do what you can to help your son avoid something similar.

Thankfully, you're clear of it, CWalner. My son stopped attending after hearing that, but catches hell from Doug. My idiot BiL is convinced that what my son needs is more JESUS.

I'm convinced if there were a Jesus, he'd be knocking Doug around with a two by four.

cwalner · 2nd October 2010, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

Thankfully, you're clear of it, CWalner. My son stopped attending after hearing that, but catches hell from Doug. My idiot BiL is convinced that what my son needs is more JESUS.

I'm convinced if there were a Jesus, he'd be knocking Doug around with a two by four.

Hey, IIRC, you live in central CA. You should be able find lots of guys named Jesus. One of them might be just what your son needs.

Roadtoad · 2nd October 2010, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

Hey, IIRC, you live in central CA. You should be able find lots of guys named Jesus. One of them might be just what your son needs.

The Central Scrutinizer · 2nd October 2010, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

Hey, IIRC, you live in central CA. You should be able find lots of guys named Jesus. One of them might be just what your son needs.

He could nail Jesus when he bends over to pick lettuce.

Isobel · 3rd October 2010, 09:56 AM

I'm a bit of a lurker on here but had to say that after reading about how gays are treated in some areas of America I'm really upset. I honestly didn't realise that in some places it was so bad. The church your son went to sounds absolutely terrible. I can't understand how in any church they don't treat all people as equal.

Regarding the poor boy that killed himself I feel so sorry for his family and friends. They must be absolutely devastated and I'm sure they wish they could have done something to stop it.

I think the guy that broadcast the live stream really needs to be made an example of - not just because of this tragedy but to ensure that others won't think it's OK to do something like this. I do think it depends on all the circumstances though as to his sentencing. IMO he did this out of trying to look big and bad in front of his mates and I'm not sure he realised what the consequences would be.

Not sure about the girl and her involvement though. It doesn't give much detail about that does it.

Something I am interested in though and I wonder if anyone on here could enlighten me?

What if this had happened and Tyler reported it to the police. Would this have then gone to the criminal court?

Is it coming to light because of Tyler committing suicide - what I'm wondering is - if he didn't commit suicide and he or someone else reported it - would they have been charged?

Does it have to be the victim that reports it or is this a criminal offence - or is it an offence like if you saw someone stealing?

Uncle Otto · 3rd October 2010, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Isobel

Something I am interested in though and I wonder if anyone on here could enlighten me?

What if this had happened and Tyler reported it to the police. Would this have then gone to the criminal court?

Is it coming to light because of Tyler committing suicide - what I'm wondering is - if he didn't commit suicide and he or someone else reported it - would they have been charged?

Does it have to be the victim that reports it or is this a criminal offence - or is it an offence like if you saw someone stealing?

They could have been charged even if he had not killed himself. Whether or not the prosecutor would have pursued it is really the question. Since prosecutors have the option not to proceed with a case for various reasons, there is really no way to tell until someone else reports a similar transgression in the same jurisdiction.

Isobel · 3rd October 2010, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Otto

They could have been charged even if he had not killed himself. Whether or not the prosecutor would have pursued it is really the question. Since prosecutors have the option not to proceed with a case for various reasons, there is really no way to tell until someone else reports a similar transgression.

Thanks Uncle Otto.

You see that's what worries me. That it has to come to someone taking their own life for this crime 'Invasion of Privacy' to be treated seriously.

It's horrible to think that anyone could do something like this and basically get off with it.

For me I am a straight female. But say one of my 'friends' took a video of me and put it on a live webcam while I was having an intimate moment with a guy I would be horrified.

I think most people would be scared of the publicity of it as well so might not report it even though it's such a nasty and vile thing to do.

This case might make idiots who do such things stop and think again.

I hope so.

jonronson · 3rd October 2010, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Good: one less homosexual in the world.

Bad: five years in jail because a twitter message.

Why are people like this allowed to post on this forum? There are many places on the Internet where people like this can go. It demeans this forum.

rwerdja · 3rd October 2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Isobel

For me I am a straight female. But say one of my 'friends' took a video of me and put it on a live webcam while I was having an intimate moment with a guy I would be horrified.

You are so right Isobel, it would be devastating for me too. but imagine that you're 18, gay and that your parents don't know yet. It would a thousand times worse. Some kids today think these kinds of pranks are funny. Some people would do this to be mean, but others are just warped in their thinking about humor.

Uncle Otto · 3rd October 2010, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Isobel

Thanks Uncle Otto.

You see that's what worries me. That it has to come to someone taking their own life for this crime 'Invasion of Privacy' to be treated seriously.

I suppose my point is that under different, non-fatal conditions, one prosecutor may have taken it entirely seriously, and maybe another in a different place would have treated it more as a prank, being that it happened on a college campus, and given the ages of everyone involved.

cwalner · 3rd October 2010, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Isobel

Thanks Uncle Otto.

You see that's what worries me. That it has to come to someone taking their own life for this crime 'Invasion of Privacy' to be treated seriously.

It's horrible to think that anyone could do something like this and basically get off with it.

For me I am a straight female. But say one of my 'friends' took a video of me and put it on a live webcam while I was having an intimate moment with a guy I would be horrified.

I think most people would be scared of the publicity of it as well so might not report it even though it's such a nasty and vile thing to do.

This case might make idiots who do such things stop and think again.

I hope so.

The highlighted part is exactly the problem. even if this were reported by a 3rd party (somebody who received the text about the live stream, but had issues with it), it is very hard to prove in a court of law that somebody's privacy was actually invaded without the cooperation of the victim. However, since such cooperation would make even more public something he didn't want even slightly public in the first place, such cooperation is hard to obtain.

PellyDforscience · 3rd October 2010, 03:23 PM

I couldnt agree more.
Our world would be a much better place if everyone was more tolerant and compassionate.

Thunder · 3rd October 2010, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by PellyDforscience

I couldnt agree more.
Our world would be a much better place if everyone was more tolerant and compassionate.

indeed. well said. welcome to the forum.

bikerdruid · 3rd October 2010, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Good: one less homosexual in the world.

what a truly repugnant attitude.

Thunder · 3rd October 2010, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

what a truly repugnant attitude.

there are many reasons for such homophobia. I think self-hatred is the most interesting one.

bikerdruid · 3rd October 2010, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

there are many reasons for such homophobia. I think self-hatred is the most interesting one.

well said.

bynmdsue · 3rd October 2010, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help.

Yeah... too late fer that. Told him-"Well Johnny,a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do..." Then he ate a bunch of pills like a bitch. Went to see him in the hospital and told him "y'know people hang themselves from doorknobs all the time, do it right next time."

Tough love.

Pauliesonne · 3rd October 2010, 08:57 PM

I can't remember the last time something that happened in real-life made me want to cry so much.

Roadtoad · 3rd October 2010, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Pauliesonne

I can't remember the last time something that happened in real-life made me want to cry so much.

I'm not so sure I want to cry, but I'm sure as hell mad enough to want to knock some heads around. My thoughts are with the surviving family.

Eddie Dane · 4th October 2010, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Does everyone in Brazil hold the same opinion?

Anecdotal: Brazilians I've met were homophobic.

Went out drinking with one guy who after a few beers came up with a hi-la-ri-ous anecdote about firing at gay prostitutes from his car with a paintball gun.

Not friend material.

2nd October 2010, 02:57 PM	#201
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by INRM And people criticize me when I say that invasion of privacy isn't a serious issue... Except of course that nobody criticized you for that.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh

2nd October 2010, 03:33 PM	#205
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,752	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat I'm not particularly grossed out by two attractive people of the same sex having sex, but two elderly people having sex? That grosses me out to think about. Ageist!!!
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2nd October 2010, 03:38 PM	#206
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by cwalner Ageist!!!
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499

2nd October 2010, 04:44 PM	#209
Uncle Otto Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 357	Originally Posted by Thunder wow...sounds like bigotry to me. and an extreme level of discomfort with even the idea of homosexuality. tell me, danrush....have you ever kissed a man? ever thought about it? Of course he has. Watch out though, he now probably has the hots for you. Bloody hell, what a closet case. Kind of reminds me of this guy---an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Michigan no less. He decided to single out a boy who got elected president of the student council at the University of Michigan----for no apparent reason other than that he is gay. Anderson Cooper interviews him on CNN. Christian loving kindness, you gotta love it, this guy is another self hating closet case--------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLEyM...1&feature=fvwp Can you say------Ted Haggard?
	Last edited by Uncle Otto; 2nd October 2010 at 04:59 PM.

2nd October 2010, 04:53 PM	#210
LibraryLady ...but not JUST a LibraryLady Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Building a house in the common ground Posts: 13,125	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto Of course he has. Watch out though, he now probably has the hots for you. Bloody hell, what a closet case. Kind of reminds me of this guy---an Assistant Attorney General for the state of Michigan no less. He decided to single out a boy who got elected president of the student council at the University of Michigan----for no apparent reason other than that he is gay. Anderson Cooper interviews him on CNN. Christian loving kindness, you gotta love it, this guy is another self hating closet case--------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLEyM...1&feature=fvwp Andrew Shrivelled? I thought about that immediately. Robert Bauman all over again.
	__________________ What would Hüsker Dü? I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. Mildred Loving

2nd October 2010, 03:13 PM	#203
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,859	Originally Posted by LibraryLady I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help. Ditto

2nd October 2010, 04:00 PM	#207
cornsail Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: nowhereville Posts: 2,694	Originally Posted by Edges I never said it was, nor did I say that it should be shared by other people. I recognize that there are different consequences for different scales of actions. If I tell a lie, no matter the scale, I don't pretend that I wasn't performing an immoral action, based on my moral philosophy. I recognize that the consequences may not be as bad. But I keep saying I'm not arguing whether an immoral action was performed or not. I'm saying certain actions are more immoral than others. Certain invasions of privacy are worse than others. Doesn't make the more minor ones "okay". Certain thefts are more immoral than others. Doesn't make the minor ones not theft. Quote: So no, your logic in applying my moral philosophy doesn't make sense. What if you stole that quarter from a homeless person? What if was that person's last quarter? How then, is that not as bad as stealing the live savings of the old lady? The consequence is the same. I said that according to your moral philosophy stealing a quarter is just as morally wrong as stealing an old lady's life savings. Here you seem to be arguing in support of that position. So why do you say my logic in applying your moral philosophy doesn't make sense? Quote: That is why I do not consider the scale of the consequence before I determine if an action was wrong. Because there are too many factors that can change that scale. Is it not wrong to steal a dollar from a millionaire? The scale of the consequence determines how much the person deserves to be punished. Again, I'm not arguing that minor transgressions are "not wrong". I'm arguing that they are less wrong. The scale of consequences do not necessarily determine how much a person deserves to be punished, but they can be a factor. Quote: Never said you did. But you do seem to connect the scale of the consequence to determining if an action with one consequence was "worse" than the same action with a different consequence. I don't that makes sense. I don't consider spying on someone making out the same action as spying on someone having sex. Quote: I disagree. The reason they broadcast the image was to put a gay man up for ridicule. They were encouraging homophobic behavior. If they were not putting it up for people to make fun of the gay man, why did they do it? I said "Ravi and Wei were not the only ones ridiculing him ... Of course, that doesn't mean Ravi and Wei weren't the most guilty parties ... " (bolding added) What do you disagree with? Quote: Of course there are grey areas. The consequences determine the punishment. Thus, a person who steals less than another person should not recieve the same punishment. That doesn't mean that what they did wasn't wrong or that the other person did something wronger. So there are grey areas in consequences and in punishment, but not in the degree of wrongness of the action. Quote: However, we have given you reasons for thinking the way we do. With the exception of Fin McR, we have told you why we don't think the details matter. Is that not reasonable discourse? I just find it an odd response. People should get the facts right. Do you disagree? I have no problem with people giving reasons why they think those details don't matter, but I get the sense that is being used as an excuse for factual inaccuracy or some kind of resistance to any factual corrections that make the perpetrators look less bad than they did originally. Quote: You said earlier that I was frustrated with your reactions. I'm not frustrated. I just think it's pointless to argue that issue with you further. I don't know you, will probably never meet you, and I've explained my argument on that as throroughly as I can or care to. There is nothing further to be gained. I assumed you were frustrated because you half-accused me of intellectual dishonesty (deliberately misreading your posts). I was trying to be polite by saying it was understandable you might let something like that out out of frustration. Quote: You want people to be accurate for accuracy's sake. Fine, whatever. I love your enthusiasm. Quote: That does not mean we cannot discuss the issues that are brought up by this case, whatever the facts are. I haven't said otherwise. Quote: You think accuracy for accuracy's sake is important, but what does that have to do with discussing whether it is wrong to invade someone's privacy or betray their trust? I see this as being more than about this particular case, with this case being a reference point. I never said factual accuracy being important has something to do with "discussing whether it is wrong to invade someone's privacy or betray their trust". Quote: ETA I will also note that saying, "if this were this way, wouldn't it change this?" is not accuracy for accuracy's sake. Have I claimed it to be?

2nd October 2010, 04:11 PM	#208
Uncle Otto Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 357	Originally Posted by The Shrike You should leave that church too. I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. Just sayin.

2nd October 2010, 05:14 PM	#211
Edges Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 279	Originally Posted by cornsail Again, I'm not arguing that minor transgressions are "not wrong". I'm arguing that they are less wrong. The scale of consequences do not necessarily determine how much a person deserves to be punished, but they can be a factor. I'm not going to spell out my philosophy again. I understand that this is what you are arguing and I have spelled out why I don't agree. In the end, we come to the same conclusion. Mr. Ravi did something wrong. The facts will determine how he is to be punished, if at all, for it. The facts won't change whether he did something wrong or not. Quote: I don't consider spying on someone making out the same action as spying on someone having sex. I disagree. But I already know you think this. Quote: I said "Ravi and Wei were not the only ones ridiculing him ... Of course, that doesn't mean Ravi and Wei weren't the most guilty parties ... " (bolding added) What do you disagree with? The part you didn't repeat, which was that they weren't responsible for the other people's homophobic comments. No, they did not make those other people say it, but they encouraged it. They bear some responsibility for that in the same way that a person who incites someone else to violence bears some responsibility for the violence. Quote: I just find it an odd response. Why? If it doesn't change the argument, it doesn't matter. Quote: People should get the facts right. Do you disagree? I have no problem with people giving reasons why they think those details don't matter, but I get the sense that is being used as an excuse for factual inaccuracy or some kind of resistance to any factual corrections that make the perpetrators look less bad than they did originally. Sure, people should get the facts right. But if it doesn't affect what they are talking about, or change what they have asserted, it doesn't matter. If, under the law, sexual activity includes heavy petting, then it may be correct to point out that they were "merely" making out and not engaged in intercourse, but it doesn't matter. You may feel that way, but why? There is really nothing that would change my opinion that Mr. Ravi did something wrong. Since I think actions are absolute, it can't be "less wrong". I could be convinced that the consequences are less severe, but you haven't been arguing that. I can concede that having someone see one picking one's nose, for most people, is not as humiliating as being seen having sex. But there is still an invasion of privacy which is absolute. You seem to have been misinterpreting what I said earlier about having someone broadcast me picking lint out of my toes being no less upsetting than being broadcast having sex. I'd certainly be more humiliated in the latter. However, I'd be just as upset that someone violated my privacy in either case. Somebody tried to humiliate me. The wrongness of this is not dependant on their success. Quote: I assumed you were frustrated because you half-accused me of intellectual dishonesty (deliberately misreading your posts). I was trying to be polite by saying it was understandable you might let something like that out out of frustration. Or it could be because I thought I had made myself clear on that issue and you kept going back to it as if you were saying something new about it. I was pointing out that either way, it was pointless for me to continue arguing that point. If you thought I was being accusatory, I apologize. However, it was not out of frustration and I don't find it "polite" to assign people emotions so you can pat them on the head say, "I know you don't mean that, dear." And, to be clear, I am suggesting that I think you were being patronising. Quote: I never said factual accuracy being important has something to do with "discussing whether it is wrong to invade someone's privacy or betray their trust". You are suggesting that I'm hand-waving away the importance of certain facts as an "excuse" not to see Mr. Ravi in a worse light. Since I have been discussing the wrongness of invading someone's privacy or betraying their trust, you are suggesting that accuracy of the facts in this case is important to that discussion. It isn't. At this point, I think I've said all I can say. I am just going to agree to disagree with you and accept that you think my moral philosophy is absurd. It's been an interesting discussion, but I am bowing out now. There is nothing I can write about this that I haven't already.

2nd October 2010, 07:07 PM	#212
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,752	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. Just sayin. I see your point for becoming Christian (or any religion for that matter), but for those who remain in churches, even those overtly anti-gay, it is much more complicated. For many, a church provides a sense of community that people don't find elsewhere. For somebody who was raised in a church, that sense of community is strongly ingrained. Separating yourself from a community that you have been part of your entire life is extremely difficult emotionally, even if that community is overtly opposed to one aspect of who you are.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2nd October 2010, 07:11 PM	#213
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. ehh...not exactly. there are maybe 2 versus in the NT against homosexuality, and maybe 5 more in the OT. clearly, when it comes to sin, gays were not the main focus of the Prophets or the Apostles. why then, does it seem to be such a big deal within Christian communities in the USA and elsewhere? cause we are a bunch of self-righteous, flaggilating, prudish fools, who are very insecure about our bodies and our sexuality.

2nd October 2010, 07:38 PM	#214
cornsail Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: nowhereville Posts: 2,694	Originally Posted by Edges I'm not going to spell out my philosophy again. I understand that this is what you are arguing and I have spelled out why I don't agree. In the end, we come to the same conclusion. Mr. Ravi did something wrong. The facts will determine how he is to be punished, if at all, for it. The facts won't change whether he did something wrong or not. I understand your philosophy. It just seems you're arguing that Mr. Ravi did something wrong at times, when I haven't disputed that, so I was clarifying. Quote: Why? If it doesn't change the argument, it doesn't matter. Sure, people should get the facts right. But if it doesn't affect what they are talking about, or change what they have asserted, it doesn't matter. If, under the law, sexual activity includes heavy petting, then it may be correct to point out that they were "merely" making out and not engaged in intercourse, but it doesn't matter. It matters when people spread misinformation about someone on a public, searchable forum in my opinion. And it matters to get things right so that others who may disagree with you that it doesn't change the argument aren't confused. Quote: You seem to have been misinterpreting what I said earlier about having someone broadcast me picking lint out of my toes being no less upsetting than being broadcast having sex. I'd certainly be more humiliated in the latter. However, I'd be just as upset that someone violated my privacy in either case. Somebody tried to humiliate me. The wrongness of this is not dependant on their success. Yes, I misunderstood this initially. I understand it now. Quote: Or it could be because I thought I had made myself clear on that issue and you kept going back to it as if you were saying something new about it. I was pointing out that either way, it was pointless for me to continue arguing that point. If you thought I was being accusatory, I apologize. You apologize that I thought you were being accusatory or you apologize for suggesting that I was being deliberately intellectually dishonest? Quote: However, it was not out of frustration and I don't find it "polite" to assign people emotions so you can pat them on the head say, "I know you don't mean that, dear." And, to be clear, I am suggesting that I think you were being patronising. Okay, well if you did mean it then I think it was unfair and don't appreciate it. How do you want me to respond to something like that? Quote: At this point, I think I've said all I can say. I am just going to agree to disagree with you and accept that you think my moral philosophy is absurd. It's been an interesting discussion, but I am bowing out now. There is nothing I can write about this that I haven't already. Yes, to each their own. Cheers.
	Last edited by cornsail; 2nd October 2010 at 07:40 PM.

2nd October 2010, 07:42 PM	#215
saraban Joined Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 843	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto I sometimes wonder how anyone who is gay could either become or remain a Christian. The theology is loaded against them. It is openly homophobic by it's own history and dogmas. It's kind of like blacks or gays who support Republicans. Kind of like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. Just sayin. I'm a member of a gay forum and the answer is they believe God loves them.
saraban Joined Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 843

2nd October 2010, 07:45 PM	#216
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,739	Originally Posted by Rolfe You have GOT to be joking! What kind of a place is America? I'm sorry, I know that sounds sweeping, but I simply cannot imagine any preacher of any denomination in Britain making a remark like that in public. Actually, when I visited America in 2008 I attended church twice with my hosts, and was very favourably impressed by the spoken content of the services (the "music" was diabolical, mind you). The sermons were far more erudite and thoughtful than I'm used to. So maybe I'm being unfair by generalising. But I'm simply gobsmacked. What sort of a "church" is this? Rolfe. I wish I were, Rolfe. My son will be moving in with my wife and myself once our house closes escrow, in part because my idiot BiL says much the same thing, and right at this moment, my son is renting a room from said relation. Okay, it's time. Doug -- Idiot BiL -- is an outright bigot, a hater, and a raving homophobe. I am not comforted that, as he's put it, my son is safe because he owns guns. I am terrified that once he finds out my son is gay, he'll pop a couple of rounds into my son's head "for his own good," as he's sometimes said should happen. Trust me: If you remember SunniMan at all, Doug and that troll would get along famously. He can't understand why, as an employee of the State of California, he can't get promoted. Telling him only starts a fight, so I just don't try anymore. On more than one occasion, I've found myself telling other drivers they were out of line in some of their homophobic rants against gays and lesbians. I'm not Mr. Popularity in some truck stops, but I'm of the opinion that it needs to be said. That there are "ministries" that promote violent acts against gays and lesbians, in the name of "cleaning house," is painfully well known. The problem is that rarely do you get someone like my son's former pastor being so open about his hate.

2nd October 2010, 07:50 PM	#217
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,739	Originally Posted by The Shrike You should leave that church too. Never attended it. And became an atheist a while ago. So, I'm clear of it.

2nd October 2010, 08:02 PM	#218
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,739	Originally Posted by LibraryLady I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help. Classy response to a highly disgusting post. Thanks, LL.

2nd October 2010, 08:25 PM	#219
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Normal Dude, Maybe not on this thread, but I've been criticized many times in other threads, often pertaining to privacy issues.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

2nd October 2010, 08:38 PM	#220
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,752	Originally Posted by Roadtoad Never attended it. And became an atheist a while ago. So, I'm clear of it. Is your son still attending, though? I ask because I am concerned for him. When in college, I was seeking something spiritual to fill the void. as an ethnic Jew, I turned to Judaism and became involved with a conservative synagogue. This did not turn out so well, because their attitudes regarding homosexuality was less than enlightened (though not as forward as the church you mention). It took some time, and I finally left, realizing that that synagogue, and religion in general was not what I needed to fill my life. The problem was that in the meantime, I went deeper into the closet and developed some self-loathing because of the disapproval of homosexuality in the group I had become a part of. This took a fairly heavy emotional toll on me, and even now, 20 years later, I occasionally feel the scars from then still. Please, use my story as a cautionary tale, and do what you can to help your son avoid something similar.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2nd October 2010, 08:41 PM	#221
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,739	Originally Posted by cwalner Is your son still attending, though? I ask because I am concerned for him. When in college, I was seeking something spiritual to fill the void. as an ethnic Jew, I turned to Judaism and became involved with a conservative synagogue. This did not turn out so well, because their attitudes regarding homosexuality was less than enlightened (though not as forward as the church you mention). It took some time, and I finally left, realizing that that synagogue, and religion in general was not what I needed to fill my life. The problem was that in the meantime, I went deeper into the closet and developed some self-loathing because of the disapproval of homosexuality in the group I had become a part of. This took a fairly heavy emotional toll on me, and even now, 20 years later, I occasionally feel the scars from then still. Please, use my story as a cautionary tale, and do what you can to help your son avoid something similar. Thankfully, you're clear of it, CWalner. My son stopped attending after hearing that, but catches hell from Doug. My idiot BiL is convinced that what my son needs is more JESUS. I'm convinced if there were a Jesus, he'd be knocking Doug around with a two by four.

2nd October 2010, 08:53 PM	#222
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,752	Originally Posted by Roadtoad Thankfully, you're clear of it, CWalner. My son stopped attending after hearing that, but catches hell from Doug. My idiot BiL is convinced that what my son needs is more JESUS. I'm convinced if there were a Jesus, he'd be knocking Doug around with a two by four. Hey, IIRC, you live in central CA. You should be able find lots of guys named Jesus. One of them might be just what your son needs.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2nd October 2010, 09:01 PM	#223
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,739	Originally Posted by cwalner Hey, IIRC, you live in central CA. You should be able find lots of guys named Jesus. One of them might be just what your son needs.

2nd October 2010, 09:29 PM	#224
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,556	Originally Posted by cwalner Hey, IIRC, you live in central CA. You should be able find lots of guys named Jesus. One of them might be just what your son needs. He could nail Jesus when he bends over to pick lettuce.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

3rd October 2010, 09:56 AM	#225
Isobel New Blood Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 12	I'm a bit of a lurker on here but had to say that after reading about how gays are treated in some areas of America I'm really upset. I honestly didn't realise that in some places it was so bad. The church your son went to sounds absolutely terrible. I can't understand how in any church they don't treat all people as equal. Regarding the poor boy that killed himself I feel so sorry for his family and friends. They must be absolutely devastated and I'm sure they wish they could have done something to stop it. I think the guy that broadcast the live stream really needs to be made an example of - not just because of this tragedy but to ensure that others won't think it's OK to do something like this. I do think it depends on all the circumstances though as to his sentencing. IMO he did this out of trying to look big and bad in front of his mates and I'm not sure he realised what the consequences would be. Not sure about the girl and her involvement though. It doesn't give much detail about that does it. Something I am interested in though and I wonder if anyone on here could enlighten me? What if this had happened and Tyler reported it to the police. Would this have then gone to the criminal court? Is it coming to light because of Tyler committing suicide - what I'm wondering is - if he didn't commit suicide and he or someone else reported it - would they have been charged? Does it have to be the victim that reports it or is this a criminal offence - or is it an offence like if you saw someone stealing?
Isobel New Blood Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 12

3rd October 2010, 10:19 AM	#226
Uncle Otto Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 357	Originally Posted by Isobel Something I am interested in though and I wonder if anyone on here could enlighten me? What if this had happened and Tyler reported it to the police. Would this have then gone to the criminal court? Is it coming to light because of Tyler committing suicide - what I'm wondering is - if he didn't commit suicide and he or someone else reported it - would they have been charged? Does it have to be the victim that reports it or is this a criminal offence - or is it an offence like if you saw someone stealing? They could have been charged even if he had not killed himself. Whether or not the prosecutor would have pursued it is really the question. Since prosecutors have the option not to proceed with a case for various reasons, there is really no way to tell until someone else reports a similar transgression in the same jurisdiction.
	Last edited by Uncle Otto; 3rd October 2010 at 10:21 AM.

3rd October 2010, 10:23 AM	#227
Isobel New Blood Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 12	Originally Posted by Uncle Otto They could have been charged even if he had not killed himself. Whether or not the prosecutor would have pursued it is really the question. Since prosecutors have the option not to proceed with a case for various reasons, there is really no way to tell until someone else reports a similar transgression. Thanks Uncle Otto. You see that's what worries me. That it has to come to someone taking their own life for this crime 'Invasion of Privacy' to be treated seriously. It's horrible to think that anyone could do something like this and basically get off with it. For me I am a straight female. But say one of my 'friends' took a video of me and put it on a live webcam while I was having an intimate moment with a guy I would be horrified. I think most people would be scared of the publicity of it as well so might not report it even though it's such a nasty and vile thing to do. This case might make idiots who do such things stop and think again. I hope so.
Isobel New Blood Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 12

3rd October 2010, 10:56 AM	#228
jonronson Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 68	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue Good: one less homosexual in the world. Bad: five years in jail because a twitter message. Why are people like this allowed to post on this forum? There are many places on the Internet where people like this can go. It demeans this forum.
jonronson Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 68

3rd October 2010, 11:02 AM	#229
rwerdja Thinker Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 154	Originally Posted by Isobel For me I am a straight female. But say one of my 'friends' took a video of me and put it on a live webcam while I was having an intimate moment with a guy I would be horrified. You are so right Isobel, it would be devastating for me too. but imagine that you're 18, gay and that your parents don't know yet. It would a thousand times worse. Some kids today think these kinds of pranks are funny. Some people would do this to be mean, but others are just warped in their thinking about humor.
rwerdja Thinker Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 154

3rd October 2010, 11:28 AM	#230
Uncle Otto Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 357	Originally Posted by Isobel Thanks Uncle Otto. You see that's what worries me. That it has to come to someone taking their own life for this crime 'Invasion of Privacy' to be treated seriously. I suppose my point is that under different, non-fatal conditions, one prosecutor may have taken it entirely seriously, and maybe another in a different place would have treated it more as a prank, being that it happened on a college campus, and given the ages of everyone involved.

3rd October 2010, 11:39 AM	#231
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,752	Originally Posted by Isobel Thanks Uncle Otto. You see that's what worries me. That it has to come to someone taking their own life for this crime 'Invasion of Privacy' to be treated seriously. It's horrible to think that anyone could do something like this and basically get off with it. For me I am a straight female. But say one of my 'friends' took a video of me and put it on a live webcam while I was having an intimate moment with a guy I would be horrified. I think most people would be scared of the publicity of it as well so might not report it even though it's such a nasty and vile thing to do. This case might make idiots who do such things stop and think again. I hope so. The highlighted part is exactly the problem. even if this were reported by a 3rd party (somebody who received the text about the live stream, but had issues with it), it is very hard to prove in a court of law that somebody's privacy was actually invaded without the cooperation of the victim. However, since such cooperation would make even more public something he didn't want even slightly public in the first place, such cooperation is hard to obtain.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

3rd October 2010, 03:23 PM	#232
PellyDforscience New Blood Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: wherever you least expect me to be. Posts: 9	I couldnt agree more. Our world would be a much better place if everyone was more tolerant and compassionate.

3rd October 2010, 03:25 PM	#233
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by PellyDforscience I couldnt agree more. Our world would be a much better place if everyone was more tolerant and compassionate. indeed. well said. welcome to the forum.

3rd October 2010, 03:36 PM	#234
bikerdruid hermit hippy weirdo Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: green island autonomous zone Posts: 7,369	Originally Posted by SnakeTongue Good: one less homosexual in the world. what a truly repugnant attitude.
	__________________ Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!

3rd October 2010, 03:53 PM	#235
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by bikerdruid what a truly repugnant attitude. there are many reasons for such homophobia. I think self-hatred is the most interesting one.

3rd October 2010, 03:56 PM	#236
bikerdruid hermit hippy weirdo Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: green island autonomous zone Posts: 7,369	Originally Posted by Thunder there are many reasons for such homophobia. I think self-hatred is the most interesting one. well said.
	__________________ Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!

3rd October 2010, 07:09 PM	#237
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Originally Posted by LibraryLady I hope, with all my heart, that you will never lose anyone to suicide. I also hope that if anyone you love is ever that miserable, in pain, and in need, he or she will not turn to you for help. Yeah... too late fer that. Told him-"Well Johnny,a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do..." Then he ate a bunch of pills like a bitch. Went to see him in the hospital and told him "y'know people hang themselves from doorknobs all the time, do it right next time." Tough love.