Murdering someone is pretty much doing anything you want to them:

"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have"

Please excuse me for having other things to do besides posting here.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Ad hominem? I think not. I am not assuming anything about you. That is from your own words. If you don't like what you've said in the past then maybe you should change your stance or just not speak about it so we would only be left to assume. I'm sorry if your own words are damning.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

The woman in this case didn't kill ll the girl. She was mean to her. Period.

I don't believe "being mean" is illegal...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

A mugging victim physically took the money by force. The girl killed HERSELF. Please don't be obtuse.Yes, protect children FROM OTHERS. It is a FACT that the kid killed HERSELF. Thus, if you want the government to protect her, it would be FROM HERSELF and it would be by placing her into a mental institution by force, or at least by banning her from using the Internet.Which is stupid. No minor was harmed, and no minor even existed.Blame the minor for killing herself.
She was not murdered.Well, it's good to know you have some other things to do, since you clearly suck at debating. You still haven't figured out that no murder occurred.
You don't need to assume much of anything about me for it to be ad hominem. Those words are not "damning" where our current argument is concerned. You are obviously choosing to make an argument against my character (whether valid or not) in order to avoid debating the topic.

I feel that it's perfectly applicable since they both deal with minors. A group of people that you feel doesn't need any protection from exploitation. They are related issues.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

If I place someone in a very hot room and/or deny them food etc. to the point where they die, am I not, even though I didn't physically kill them, responsible for their death? This woman purposely caused the death of this child and causing a death is murder, how I do it is really irrelevant, the only question that needs to be asked is "would the person reasonably be expected to be alive if I had not acted and was their death my intention". Oh, and the fact that this girl may (or may not) have committed suicide anyway is like arguing that the person I imprisoned was oversensitive to heat, it exacerbates instead of excusing my culpability.

The crime of assault is, technically, entirely verbal. If I place you in reasonable fear of harm simply by threateining you I am guilty of it. (This is why the old charges used to be "assault and battery" if one was beaten in a fight, frex.)

Besides that, the woman knew she was dealing with a child and a disturbed person, and her actions were specifically designed to make this child commit suicide.

I return to the example I used before. A rather popular tv show is based around the idea that you cannot solicit a child for sex over the Internet. In this show the "child" does not even exist, yet the men are arrested and prosecuted for it quite handily. Why are children entitled to this degree of protection from sexual predators and not from mental predators who threaten their very lives?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

It's a related topic, but the topic of this thread is something specific. What you're doing is claiming that I hold a certain opinion on a related matter, but it does not help make a case against my argument here. Hell, if your claim is true, then I have in fact been consistent, so it's not even an effective ad hominem attack.

Here is the definition of ad hominem:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I made an argument regarding the cyberbully case, one which is against laws that protect kids from themselves and impose ridiculous punishments for Internet flaming. You are attacking a supposed belief held by me rather than addressing the substance of my argument or producing evidence against my claim.

If you pointed out inconsistency, you might have had some kind of point. For instance, if I posted in a different cyberbully case thread that had a parallel situation and argued in favor of the kid, whereas here I'm arguing in opposition to that, you could at least point out a valid inconsistency.

However, what your saying is that I have been consistent and that it somehow makes my argument invalid? That's fallacious, and stupid as fuck.

The woman did not illegally and unjustly place the kid anywhere. No kidnapping occurred. The girl placed herself in the noose. Please stop making false analogies.Of course you physically killed them. You placed them in a situation they could not survive, kind of like throwing someone off of a building. Can we please stop with this stupidity?I think she would have killed herself, anyway. There was clearly something wrong with her. Not that it matters, since every dollar and every bit of food I don't send to starving Africans probably results in some death once in a while.

Hell, if someone held a gun to his own head and told you to send him all your money, and you refused he'd kill himself, and you refused and he killed himself, you would consider yourself a murderer?Given that you went out of your way to kidnap and imprison them unjustly, I think it's safe to say they would not have kidnapped and imprisoned themselves. She was not placed in a reasonable fear of harm. She was rejected and killed herself because she couldn't handle it, not because she thought she'd be abducted and tortured or something.Prove it.You're using something stupid and comparing it to this to make others consider either position not stupid?

Consistantly wrong is not something to tout. This lady did nothing illegal but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have anything negative happen to her. There are plenty of adults, these days, that need a good beating. That's the only way some people learn. This lady def deserves it, if she gets it.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Anyone who thinks protecting children from internet predators is "stupid" is calling their own character into question

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Yes, you are.

But you are also not allowing them to eat. You are forcing that on them.

Nobody forced this girl to log onto the net, nor forced her onto MySpace.

Your comparison fails...

You think this woman intended to cause the girl's death?

And "causing a death" isn't "murder", by the way...

The dead girl was imprisoned nowehere. Your comparison, as I stated, is a failure...

That may be your opinion, but it's little more...

How did the woman threaten the girl's life?

By being mean to her?

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

She didn't physically touch or harm the child, no, but mental harm is a reality recognized by law.

If I somehow purposely caused the African to be starving and did so intentionally to cause their death, yes

That she not only knew that the child was suicidal but tailored her attack to take advantage of it was established as fact in the trial.

Please stop repeating the same arguments with no answer to my refutations of them and the sobriquet, "you suck at debating" attached. These are the very definition of ad hominem and furthemore, make you look silly.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Nobody forces you to answer a telephone or open your mail, but a death threat through either medium is still illegal.

Causing a death intentionally is, unless it's legal execution or in wartime, is it not?

I believe this woman's intention to cause the girl's suicide was established either at or before the trial.

She didn't, but I used that only as an illustration that mental harm is recognized as tangible by law.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Slon,

You also realise that you can be charged with assult using only words, right?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Well, I'm not constantly wrong, and you haven't proven it to be wrong. All you've done is claim consistency and shit out an ad hominem.

By your lights if I place someone into a very hot room until they die I am not responsible for their death. After all, I didn't touch them.
Yes, you did, when you PLACED them there. Can you please stop posting the same retarded shit over and over again?

Same thing if I poison somebody. In this case the poison was lies, no difference. Murder is when you purposely set out to kill somebody and cause their death, how you go about it it irrelevant.
Oh for fuck's sake, it's not like she said putting a noose around your neck made you an instant millionaire. The girl was NOT deceived into hanging herself.

Could you at least try to understand that PLACING someone somewhere TOUCHES them? Please?

Try telling that to the cops.
So your claim is that the cops and the law are ALWAYS right?


Oh great, another would be ad-hom poster.
Mental harm did not cause the girls death. Her decision to hang herself, and the subsequent hanging, did.Well, it's not like the woman drilled a hole in the girl's brain to take a shit there and make her depressed. The kid was depressed. She couldn't take some Internet flames, so she killed herself. Happens all the time. People can't handle their career, so they off themselves. They lose a big gamble? Suicide. Happens ALL the fucking time and it is not the fault of the flamer.Link?I'm repeating the same arguments because you keep replying with the same shit over and over again. Here's a gem:

"By your lights if I place someone into a very hot room until they die I am not responsible for their death. After all, I didn't touch them."

YES you FUCKING DID when you PLACED them there. You've posted this or something similar multiple times. You should be thanking me for putting up with your obtuseness.
Who says I agreed with that?