James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 48 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Uhh, yeah you did. If I knowingly have sex with someone who has an ovarian cyst and they die, could I be tried for murder or man slaughter? Nope! Oh P...oh P....where does it say I have, I would or I am comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone who could die from an ovarian cyst. It does not. Nice try.... 48 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Correct. That's a pretty shitty way to go about suicide though. It's similar to throwing yourself under a moving car, leaving the driver to feel for the rest of their life like they killed someone. But, I guess (speaking as someone who's been there before) by the time you're considering suicide, you probably aren't caring as much about the consequences of your actions on others. Erm no...incorrect actually. We all know we can die if we cross a road and get hit by a car. Yet we still risk it. Suicide...I think not. Nice try.... 48 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Well yeah. I'm not saying running to the shop was the ONLY reason the guy died either. But it's still a cause of death. Nope. It’s linked, but as homer says, it’s the trigger that leads to the cause. Attributing any blame to the trigger is stooping really low. 48 minutes ago, Philip027 said: That's pretty irrelevant if YOU know Agreed. My example was supposed to be someone who didn’t know that death was a possibility for their partner as a result of the sex they were about to have..... 48 minutes ago, Philip027 said: If it makes you feel any better, there is no shortage of dumb adults, either. Very evident on a daily basis. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, Philip027 said: You know (based on this very discussion) that it can kill someone, so your inferred reasoning here is that it isn't murder/manslaughter so long as the courts can't pin it on you. That's kind of the point of a trial, no? To determine whether someone committed a crime or not. If the courts can't pin it on you, you're good. Granted, they can be wrong, but... If I offered you a glass of water, you accept, take a sip, choke on it and die, did I kill you? I'm perfectly aware of the possibility of this to happen, no matter how slim the chances. Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 For it to be manslaughter, let alone murder, the plaintiff has to be shown they did whatever action caused the death knowing it was likely to seriously harm the victim. That seems a pretty good moral criterion too. Ovarian cysts are horrible and painful, but they mostly don't burst during sex, and if they do, they almost certainly won't kill the woman. Just as a point of fact. Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Homer said: That's kind of the point of a trial, no? To determine whether someone committed a crime or not. If the courts can't pin it on you, you're good. Granted, they can be wrong, but... If I offered you a glass of water, you accept, take a sip, choke on it and die, did I kill you? I'm perfectly aware of the possibility of this to happen, no matter how slim the chances. Excellent point Homer. It’s only wrong to do something when you know the probability of death or serious injury is high or substantial. I can’t say I’m an expert on Ovarian cysts so I can’t say what the deal is there. From wiki though...... CYST RUPTURE A ruptured ovarian cyst is usually self-limiting, and only requires keeping an eye on the situation and pain medications. The main symptom is abdominal pain, which may last a few days to a several weeks, but they can also be asymptomatic.[6] Rupture of large ovarian cysts can cause bleeding inside the abdominal cavity and in some cases shock. So death seems highly highly unlikely and thus avoiding sex with your partner (assuming you and they actually want sex) would probably be considered far too risk averse. I know my kids could die from choking if I give them some food that gets lodged in their throat and blocks their airway. Should I avoid giving my children food unless it is blended in to a liquid. lol Link to post Share on other sites
IronHamster Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 The absurdity of the cyst hypothesis is as crazy as Kabuki theater, but not nearly as entertaining. It makes me worry about some of the members. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quote Oh P...oh P....where does it say I have, I would or I am comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone who could die from an ovarian cyst. It does not. Nice try.... It's right there in what I italicized. "knowingly" implies willful intent. Just because this whole scenario is hypothetical doesn't absolve you of your line of reasoning, especially when you attribute the hypothetical actions to yourself. Quote Erm no...incorrect actually. We all know we can die if we cross a road and get hit by a car. Yet we still risk it. Suicide...I think not. Nice try.... If you're doing it intentionally recklessly with wanton disregard for your own life, then yes, it's basically suicide. Maybe this is a surprise to you, but most people who cross a street don't actually want to die. Quote Nope. It’s liked, but as homer says, it’s the trigger that leads to the cause. Attributing any blame to the trigger is stooping really low. What exactly is being "stooped low" to? Being able to properly identify causes of death isn't a matter of which is more moral than the other, it's about... what caused the death. If there is a car accident and someone is left dead that would not be dead if it weren't for the car accident, then the car accident is a cause of death. Not rocket science. Quote Agreed. My example was supposed to be someone who didn’t know that death was a possibility for their partner as a result of the sex they were about to have..... Then you should have specified as such, because you placed yourself in that example. Based on the discussion in this thread, it seemed that you knew that it would be life-risking for the other person but were choosing to ignore it. Quote That's kind of the point of a trial, no? To determine whether someone committed a crime or not. If the courts can't pin it on you, you're good. Granted, they can be wrong, but... And that's pretty much what it comes down to. This sort of thing only works for people who place 100% faith in the courts and their judgments. A lot of people aren't willing to do that, myself included. In my book, murder isn't something that only takes place if a court can prove it. Murder is something that takes place when someone willfully kills another person, full stop. Proof (and the subsequent judgments from a judicial system) is a whole separate factor. Quote If I offered you a glass of water, you accept, take a sip, choke on it and die, did I kill you? I'm perfectly aware of the possibility of this to happen, no matter how slim the chances. Technically speaking, YES, you were a contributor to their death, because had you not done that the person wouldn't have died. It's actually precisely why such events (which DO happen in reality) are prone to leave the person with a form of survivor's guilt and feeling like they "killed" someone, even if it's obviously clearly a 100% unintentional freak accident, and they did absolutely nothing directly TO that person (as opposed to, like, running someone over who dived in front of their car... where the degree of guilt can obviously be much worse). Do I think you'd be a killer because of it? Obviously not. But can I say that you are also 100% not responsible in any way for that person's death? No, I can't really say that either. Unintentional and unforeseeable as it was, your action still led to someone's death. It doesn't mean I think you'd be in the wrong for it; I'm just calling it like it is. Sometimes shitty things are borne out of good intentions. That's just life. Quote I know my kids could die from choking if I give them some food that gets lodged in their throat and blocks their airway. Should I avoid giving my children food unless it is blended in to a liquid. lol You may be trying to pass this off for a laugh, but kids can and have died this way. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 So basically we're all screwed in one way or the other, sooner or later. 42 minutes ago, Philip027 said: If there is a car accident and someone is left dead that would not be dead if it weren't for the car accident, then the car accident is a cause of death. Not rocket science. Sooo... if someone's left dead in a car accident because of a ruptured cyst, who wouldn't have been left dead in the same accident without having this csyt, then the cyst is the cause of death. I'm now confused what your point is. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quote So basically we're all screwed in one way or the other, sooner or later. Well, I could be quippy here and be all like "at least nobody dies a virgin, because life screws us all", but really the only workable solution to this is to realize that sometimes the good-intentioned things you do can lead to bad things for others (even if it's not necessarily their death) but that does not make you a bad person, nor does it mean you can be held accountable for things that happen outside of your control. The intent is what matters; it's what separates the murderers from the people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who indirectly "kill" another person in this sort of way can become very traumatized by the incident unless they receive the proper therapy and guidance for their survivor's guilt, but thankfully this is something that most of us won't have to experience in our lifetimes. Quote Sooo... if someone's left dead in a car accident because of a ruptured cyst, who wouldn't have been left dead in the same accident without having this csyt, then the cyst is the cause of death. I'm now confused what your point is. My point is that it's incorrect to say the car crash is not a cause of that person's death. What is so confusing? Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 15 minutes ago, Philip027 said: It's right there in what I italicized. "knowingly" implies willful intent. Just because this whole scenario is hypothetical doesn't absolve you of your line of reasoning, especially when you attribute the hypothetical actions to yourself. If you're doing it intentionally recklessly with wanton disregard for your own life, then yes, it's basically suicide. Maybe this is a surprise to you, but most people who cross a street don't actually want to die. What exactly is being "stooped low" to? Being able to properly identify causes of death isn't a matter of which is more moral than the other, it's about... what caused the death. If there is a car accident and someone is left dead that would not be dead if it weren't for the car accident, then the car accident is a cause of death. Not rocket science. Then you should have specified as such, because you placed yourself in that example. Based on the discussion in this thread, it seemed that you knew that it would be life-risking for the other person but were choosing to ignore it. And that's pretty much what it comes down to. This sort of thing only works for people who place 100% faith in the courts and their judgments. A lot of people aren't willing to do that, myself included. In my book, murder isn't something that only takes place if a court can prove it. Murder is something that takes place when someone willfully kills another person, full stop. Proof (and the subsequent judgments from a judicial system) is a whole separate factor. Technically speaking, YES, you were a contributor to their death, because had you not done that the person wouldn't have died. It's actually precisely why such events (which DO happen in reality) are prone to leave the person with a form of survivor's guilt and feeling like they "killed" someone, even if it's obviously clearly a 100% unintentional freak accident, and they did absolutely nothing directly TO that person (as opposed to, like, running someone over who dived in front of their car... where the degree of guilt can obviously be much worse). Do I think you'd be a killer because of it? Obviously not. But can I say that you are also 100% not responsible in any way for that person's death? No, I can't really say that either. Unintentional and unforeseeable as it was, your action still led to someone's death. It doesn't mean I think you'd be in the wrong for it; I'm just calling it like it is. Sometimes shitty things are borne out of good intentions. That's just life. You may be trying to pass this off for a laugh, but kids can and have died this way. P, you have interpreted this how you have wanted to in order to cast aspersions over my character. At no point have I said what you imply. Having now researched a little on ovarian cysts..... having sex which in theory could cause a rupture, a rupture that in theory could cause blood loss in theory to a point of medical shock, medical shock that could lead in theory to death is.....not.......suicide. That’s not wanton disregard. Maybe this will surprise you but someone who has sex whilst they have an ovarian cyst is also someone unlikely to want to die. What was your point with that one? Your rocket science and mine are very different. You are still showing a wanton disregard for a trigger vs a cause of death. Because it suits your argument to do so. I don’t believe you are incapable of understanding what’s being said. Your written words prove you have an education so it appears to simply be determination and bloody mindedness that prevents you from admitting your points are flawed. You are correct in that murder is murder regardless of whether a guilty or not guilty verdict is returned in court. Your understanding of causing a death is skewed though. So you walk down the street, as you walk round the corner of a building you bump in to a child who falls over, hits her head and dies. You call that murder? You were responsible for her death? You showed a wanton disregard for human life because you walked down the road. Your logic doesn’t stack up. Im not trying to pass anything off as a laugh by the way and I recognise people have died this way. Including as you say “dumb” kids. Again, nice try with the old character assassination but came up a little short. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, Philip027 said: My point is that it's incorrect to say the car crash is not a cause of that person's death. What is so confusing? I just have no idea how you come to that conclusion. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Yes, the car crash might have contributed to that person's death, but contribution does not equal causation. If said person had been okay after the crash if it hadn't been for that cyst, the crash is a conributor. It is not the cause. The cyst would be the cause. Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Homer said: I just have no idea how you come to that conclusion. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Yes, the car crash might have contributed to that person's death, but contribution does not equal causation. If said person had been okay after the crash if it hadn't been for that cyst, the crash is a conributor. It is not the cause. The cyst would be the cause. Wait for it.....Here comes another reply that includes the phrase “rocket science”. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 No need to make fun of anyone and their responses though... Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, Philip027 said: My point is that it's incorrect to say the car crash is not a cause of that person's death. What is so confusing? What’s confusing is that the cause of death is the ruptured cyst. What caused the dead person to enter the car as a passenger or driver? The car didn’t swallow them they must have got in. They knew the risk of potential crashing as do we all when you get in a car? Suicide then? Lol. This doesn’t stack up. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quote If said person had been okay after the crash if it hadn't been for that cyst, the crash is a conributor. It is not the cause. The cyst would be the cause. If the person with the cyst would have been okay if it hadn't been for that crash, the cyst is a contributor. It is not the cause. See how this works yet? Personally, I don't bother making this sort of useless distinction and I just say they're both causes. Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, Homer said: No need to make fun of anyone and their responses though... That wasn’t making fun. Just a prediction. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, Philip027 said: If the person with the cyst would have been okay if it hadn't been for that crash, the cyst is a contributor. It is not the cause. See how this works yet? Yep. Not at all, that is. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quote Having now researched a little on ovarian cysts..... having sex which in theory could cause a rupture, a rupture that in theory could cause blood loss in theory to a point of medical shock, medical shock that could lead in theory to death is.....not.......suicide. That’s not wanton disregard. Maybe this will surprise you but someone who has sex whilst they have an ovarian cyst is also someone unlikely to want to die. What was your point with that one? I don't really know anything about these cysts and frankly, I don't really care. I was just going by the earlier assertions in this thread (not made by me) that apparently having sex while having them can be life-threatening. Quote So you walk down the street, as you walk round the corner of a building you bump in to a child who falls over, hits her head and dies. You call that murder? You were responsible for her death? You showed a wanton disregard for human life because you walked down the road. Your logic doesn’t stack up. Murder? No, because that requires intent to kill and this was just a freak accident. Were you responsible for his death? Hell yes, you were. It being a freak accident does not change the fact that it was your presence there that contributed to his death and that if it weren't for you being there, he'd still be alive. Does that mean that you ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? No, because it was a fucking accident that was out of your control. But it doesn't mean you have absolutely zero responsibility either. Again, this is exactly WHY survivor's guilt is a thing. If everyone was able to wrap their heads around it properly and just say "oh well, shit happens!" then it wouldn't be as much of a thing. But it is, because the people unfortunate enough to be in situations like this feel that degree of responsibility, and they end up crushed by it because they cannot reconcile the fact that they aren't killers, yet from their perspective, they just "killed" somebody. Quote Yep. Not at all, that is. That's too bad, because it's really very simple. Bottom line though, trying to say the crash was not a cause of that person's death is not being fully honest about the events that transpired. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimeric Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 4 hours ago, Sally said: No no no no no. It isn't. No one's"trapped", no one's "being made to have sex". Geezus, stop it. If you're in a relationship and feel emotionally obligated to have sex with the person you love, that's pretty similar, isn't it? 3 hours ago, James121 said: Compromised sex is not the same as rape because it involves consenting parties. It would be just as fair to call a person who is made to go without sex by their spouse, a victim of false imprisonment as it would to call compromised sex, rape. The big issue with compromised sex though is that the person having the sex with the partner who ‘compromised’, will often feel as though or be made to feel as though they are raping their partner or that they are doing something horrifically wrong. Correct, it is not the same as rape because it involves consenting parties. But the physical and emotional consequences on the asexual partner are comparable, aren't they? In which case, the only real difference is what we're calling it, isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chimeric said: If you're in a relationship and feel emotionally obligated to have sex with the person you love, that's pretty similar, isn't it? Correct, it is not the same as rape because it involves consenting parties. But the physical and emotional consequences on the asexual partner are comparable, aren't they? In which case, the only real difference is what we're calling it, isn't it? I would imagine yes, but also, the physical and emotional consequences of being refused are comparable to the physical and emotional consequences of an asexual who has regular, compromised, sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimeric Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, James121 said: I would imagine yes, but also, the physical and emotional consequences of being refused are comparable to the physical and emotional consequences of an asexual who has regular, compromised, sex. I don't know that any one of us could ever know that for certain, to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chimeric said: If you're in a relationship and feel emotionally obligated to have sex with the person you love, that's pretty similar, isn't it? Yet that would be your feelings. Just because you feel it doesn't mean it's true. 5 minutes ago, Chimeric said: Correct, it is not the same as rape because it involves consenting parties. But the physical and emotional consequences on the asexual partner are comparable, aren't they? In which case, the only real difference is what we're calling it, isn't it? Do you really think that someone taking part in an activity after expressing consent, even if they don't particularly like that activity, feel somewhat similar to someone being abused, without any consent? 9 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Bottom line though, trying to say the crash was not a cause of that person's death is not being fully honest about the events that transpired. You might want to read this explanation of the difference between "cause" and "factor" Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, Chimeric said: I don't know that any one of us could ever know that for certain, to be honest. Agreed, I mean it’s possible that the emotional damage of total rejection could even be worse. Who knows! Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quote You might want to read this explanation of the difference between "cause" and "factor" The thing is, no matter which way you try to spin what the "cause" of death here was, a case can be made for the other thing being the cause too, which is the point that you weren't getting (and honestly, at this point I feel like you're choosing to not get it). And at this point it becomes a stupid pointless debate and it's easier to just label them both as causes because both explanations are valid. Nothing in that link changes this. I don't see why anything has to have specifically one cause, anyway. Most things in life don't have one sole reason for being. Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 5 hours ago, Sally said: No no no no no. It isn't. No one's"trapped", no one's "being made to have sex". Geezus, stop it. Some of us have been. Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 33 minutes ago, Evil said: Some of us have been. Agreed. Many people have gotten married in good faith, had children in good faith, put their finances in to a sharing pot with someone else who has then discovered that they no longer want any intimacy. Lots of people feel trapped. Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Philip027 said: a case can be made for the other thing being the cause too, Especially when it suits your argument to ignore and defy logical thought. Link to post Share on other sites
Evil Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, James121 said: Agreed. Many people have gotten married in good faith, had children in good faith, put their finances in to a sharing pot with someone else who has then discovered that they no longer want any intimacy. Lots of people feel trapped. Absolutely. It happens on both sides. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Philip027 said: The thing is, no matter which way you try to spin what the "cause" of death here was, a case can be made for the other thing being the cause too, which is the point that you weren't getting (and honestly, at this point I feel like you're choosing to not get it) Of course you can "make a case"... just not a very good or reasonable one. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Quote Of course you can "make a case"... just not a very good or reasonable one. Not any different from yours I'm afraid Quote Especially when it suits your argument to ignore and defy logical thought. Oh, that's funny! Because I could have sworn that's what you were doing, trying to pass me off as thinking an unintentional killing is the equivalent of murder. Link to post Share on other sites
James121 Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Not any different from yours I'm afraid I still think you are applying children’s logic. Man with heart condition runs to the shop and collapses when he gets there. Child believes running to the shop kills you. Instead of man running to shop, he cycles to the hairdresser and collapses when he gets there. Child believes biking to the hairdresser kills you instead. It’s not wrong as such but it’s only seeing what’s in front of you and not understanding that life has a bigger picture. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.