Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by RedRalph, Mar 5, 2010.
I'm still baffled by South Korean people and their feats of internet addiction.
Its a sad story, but its only making the news because of the internet angle. Theres countless people out there whose kids have died from poor treatment as a result of their parents addictions. The news story isn't so much that the kid died as it is about how addictive the internet can be.
Put them in a cell with the internet, but make it 56k dial-up modem. Then just when you think they're getting used to that, reduce it to a 28.8. Once they start getting used to that, just take it away from them. That is, if you have time between the regular beatings.
There is nothing criminal about it, but the teacher is liable. Her and the school should be held responsible in civil courts. The government should have done a better job in hiring such a apathetic employee, and she should not be allowed to work with minors.
Any DUI should receive an automatic licensee suspension, regardless of damage to property or person. A person that drives a vehicle on a public road without a license, or insurance should be imprisoned to keep the public safe from their negligence, not to give punishment.
I think that the innocent by-standards should sue the drunk driver for wrongful death etc... . Now if the government can make us safer by putting someone in prison then they should. I don't see how slapping someone on the wrist is going to make anyone safer.
What do you think the purpose of 'punishment' is?
How do you rehabilitate someone to not starve a child? Screw them and their problems.
A criminal act doesn't need specific intent you know, thank Hades.
How are the school supposed to know, if she hasn't given them any indication that she's so apathetic beforehand, that she's so "apathetic". Such "apathetic" people don't tend to walk around with neon signs, you know...
Why not? Why should they make others' lives a misery by breaking the law, yet they themselves have to suffer little in comparison? That is not fair, by any standards.
To put the offender in the victims shoes; to force them to feel what the victims felt; to make their lives as much of a misery as they've made the victims.
I think that a person will feel guilt, pain, and empathy for someone they do harm to. Unless that person is a sociopath, in which case punishment won't work.
1. Governments are here to protect us.
2. Governments can not make people moral.
3. morality is the combination of 2 things; ones character, and empathy.
Using those three points I can't come up with a reason to imprison someone for the sake of punishment.
1. Governments are here to protect us and punish wrongdoers.
There. Done it in 1.
If a person feels so much guilt, pain and empathy for someone they bring harm to, then the question is, why do they still bring harm to them? The answer is, they don't feel any of these feelings nearly enough.
They tried to have a successful virtual life at the expense of their real lives.
The only types of people that do not feel empathy and remorse are sociopaths.
If a person is subhuman then it does not matter what happens to them. In which case death is always justifiable. Being careless is not the same as being a sociopath.
Being a sociopath doesn't mean you don't care what happens to you. They can still be punished. Your position is absolutely insane.
If they are a sociopath they are subhuman. If they are subhuman then it does not matter if we put them to death just for the fact that they are incapable of feeling human emotions.
is there any reason why South Korea has crazy internet users like this?
Time to judge all gamers by their behavior. Are you on this, media?
Also, that's a very short article.
So you think that these people are perfectly normal and don't have any mental problems? That's an awfully odd thing to think. Do you consider their behaviour normal?
And if someone is mentally impaired, do you think that they should be punished as if they had full intent in their crimes?
They indulged the addiction of these people, leading to death. It's like a cigarette company personally delivering a pack a day to a smoker, and then saying that they are not in any way responsible for the death.
And I completely disagree with the analogy to alcohol (although I doubt that the person who drives drunk will be blameless). Licensed venues need to be held accountable for facilitating situations that lead to death.
South Korea does have one of the world's highest number of broadband users per capita.
Do you consider murder normal? Or manslaughter? Or attempted murder?
They should certainly be tried to that effect, yes.
No, it's not. It's like someone accepting a pack a day and then saying the smoking company is responsible for the death.
What way is it their fault? They have no legal power to stop someone, they shouldn't be held accountable for this.
A company providing a service should not be responsible for the choices their customers make of their own free will. The customers are responsible for their own actions.
By your logic, so should all gun manufacturers be responsible for the guns that lead to death. The same with furniture manufacturers for all the people that die beaten to death by chair legs. We have to draw a line somewhere.
And that line is that a person is responsible for his or her own actions.
While I do believe antisocial personality disorder is one of the most undesirable forms of psychopathology to suffer, psychopaths are not "subhuman;" they have rights, like anyone else.
Actually, it is a bit of a conundrum, since the process of bringing them back in touch with reality would inevitably bring them to the realization that they were responsible for their offspring's death by total neglect for its needs. This, incidentally, might well contribute to another collapse into depression, which can, in some cases, have psychotic features.
Okay, I see your point with that, however, this is clearly more whacked out than your average murder. I mean, murder usually has some sort of logical motive (e.g. they insulted me, I want the insurance money, they saw something they shouldn't have, etc.). This did not. These people were clearly out of their minds. It's a simple matter of whether or not we should actually think about the situation with this obvious mental impairment in mind, or react in a simplistic 'OMG they did something horrible off with their heads!' manner.
Well, the whole point I'm getting at is that they shouldn't.
Smoking is probably too common to be used as a good analogy. Let's go with prescription drugs. Perfectly legal, but it is possible to kill yourself by using them too much. So if you overdosed on prescription medication, should the chemist who sold way too much of the drug to you be held at least partially accountable? Of course. And they would be.
They have the right to refuse service to any person. So they could've stopped this couple from going on 12 hour binge after 12 hour binge.
If your product has the ability to facilitate harm, then you do have a responsibility to minimise the harm that could possibly come from it. Cars have to have certain safety features, for example. You can't make a deadly product and then clean your hands of it, saying, 'Hey, it was the customers decision'.
There's a difference between providing a product and providing a product to a level which causes harm. I'm not saying that all licensed venues should be fined if they serve one alcoholic drink to someone who then goes and assaults someone. But if they serve someone until and after they are drunk, then they are straying well into the territory of facilitating harm. For a gun analogy, no, gun manufacturers should not be responsible if a mass murderer uses one of their legally purchased weapons. However, if a person with a history of gun violence goes into a gun shop and buys a number of high powered rifles, and then goes on a shooting spree, then the gun shop owner should be held partially liable. And they would be.
Well obviously these people were not responsible people. They clearly had some mental problem. Some form of depression, perhaps. Companies should have a moral responsibility to make sure that their desire for profit does not result in harm to their customers.
Think of this example. At my work, there was a lady who came in very regularly and ordered a couple of glasses of wine (and a token food item, which was the law at the time for a restaurant). It eventually came to our attention that she was an alcoholic who was in and out of hospital, so we decided to stop serving her. Should we not have done that? Should we have continued to serve her under the argument of, "she should be responsible for her own actions?" Of course not.
As in this situation, these people had an addiction that was resulting in harm being done to their child. Now, the internet cafe they went to obviously facilitated this addiction and did not abide by their moral obligation to prevent their product from doing harm. So they should face some sort of punishment.
Separate names with a comma.