There's the difference - our laws up here clearly impose both an obligation to help and immunization from lawsuits when you do.
As for the facebook algorithm, there is none. If you had actually read the article, here's what it says:
In case some user is having suicidal thoughts and mentions that in the Facebook posts and if a friend of that user reports it to Facebook then a third party will immediately review the post and Facebook would lock the suicidal user’s account and the user will be made to read Facebook’s suicide prevention materials.
It's humans all the way down...
If you think someone is serious about committing suicide, and you have no other way for someone to contact them or raise the alarm, what are you going to do - sit on your tush and do nothing?
You just love changing the focus of the conversation away from the point at hand with bad analogies, don't you. So, back on track. First, mentioning suicide will only get you held for your own protection, if people believe the threat is credible. Given the information in the article, there was certainly sufficient reason to believe it was credible.
Now, let's look at your trolling her:
Here's what I said:
Or, throwing a rock is legal, but publicly going n a rant about how your financial situation sucks and you're going to throw a rock through the window of a jewelry store and rob them... not so much.
and here's what you say in response:
Throwing a rock isn't legal. It's vandalism or assault. Your logic is so absurd you are arguing that murder is legal because shooting a gun at a range is legal, so shooting a person is legal.
Now, you're wrong. Throwing a rock IS legal. Ever skip stones across a lake? Throwing a rock to commit vandalism is not.
Same as shooting a gun is legal, shooting a person with a gun is not (unless you're Dick Cheney). I never claimed otherwise.
And then you come to this conclusion:
You are a bad person. You don't discuss, you argue because you like attention. I like the truth, and discussion. Fuck off.
After turning around what I said to the exact opposite, you don't like the truth, you like to argue for the sake of arguing/ You (either purposefully or because you have a comprehension problem) try to twist what other people have said and build your false arguments on that.
I would suggest that i the future you take your own advice and f*ck off. You've done this over and over, and it's getting tiresome to try to reason with someone who has a history of misrepresenting my positions to provoke arguments. I'm beginning to wonder if there's something personal about your behavior.
No, you say "Yes officer, I know what speed I was going." No admission of anything.
Now the officer can't try to bump the speed up 10-20 miles an hour over what you were doing for a bigger ticket. At the very least, it will lessen your pain. Or they can decide to go after a bigger, stupider pigeon rather than waste time writing you up for a pittance that they know will probably be contested in court.
However, when you are pulled over saying to the officer, 'I was not watching my speed, but I was moving with traffic', may well prevent you from ever having to appear in traffic court in the first place
As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit. From a business standpoint, it was a stupid move, not to mention that they violated the DBAD rule.
Whose fault is it? The laws here must be better than yours, because part of the law is a "duty to help", and no, you can't be sued if you genuinely get something wrong while lending assistance.
What next - saying that it's okay not to stop a blind person from falling into an open excavation?
or even caused her to commit suicide - weird, but that's a side effect.
Yeah, I was once prescribed anti-depression medicine that had "May cause suicide" as a specified side effect.
One of the problems of anti-depressants is that, in the first few days, it can relieve enough of the lethargy that a person can put a suicide plan in motion, while not immediately relieving the desire to kill yourself as fast. The first few days is the highest-risk period.
The worst part was that most of those self-appointed ethicists was that, just listening to them,, it should have been painfully the underlying objection was quasi-religious, No testing, no studies, no empirical evidence, just mental masturbation.
Ask anyone suffering from a chronic disease if they would like the genes involved to be edited out in their offspring - there will be plenty of motivated volunteers. After all, they have first-hand experience with what it's like with bad genes.
First, not all diseases are caused by "some little organism inside your body trying reproduce at the cost of your cells." Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, vascular dementia, stroke, and a ton of other diseases are still diseases, even though "little buggies" didn't cause them.
And no, deep depression (months-long, not a week) is something that you just can't "snap yourself out of". CBT helps, but in the middle of a major depressive episode you're not in the best frame of mind to use the training you've learned from therapy.
You said it yourself - "a good person in a bad state of mind". That bad state of mind is a disorder when it gets to the point that it threatens your life, same as not being able to produce insulin is a disorder of the pancreas.
Now, what's wrong if antidepressants relieve some of the symptoms, allowing you to hope for better days? Suffering sucks - wanting to kill yourself for months on end wears you down. If antidepressants do nothing more than restore some chemical imbalance in the brain to help dull the urge to act on suicidal thoughts, so you can at least try to apply the lessons from CBT, why not?
And how many of the people, like yourself, who justify killing women with old testament quotes, are Jews? After all, the O.T. was the law god supposedly gave to the jews, his "chosen people", alone - and today most Jews certainly don't condone killing someone for adultery. Crappy attempt at trolling.
And there are also cases of people too foolish to see the difference between someone killing themselves while people on the internet egg her on, and paint being green.
Same as there's nothing illegal about going to the bathroom, but what do you thing saying you're going to take a dump in the middle of rush hour on the Golden Gate bridge do, if it was believable? Or, throwing a rock is legal, but publicly going n a rant about how your financial situation sucks and you're going to throw a rock through the window of a jewelry store and rob them... not so much.
Secondly, what is missing from the story is this: did he actually have Bank America trouble?
He did. This stunt was to draw attention to his mortgage problems, not a test per se:
San Mateo police took Tusch in their custody and inquired him regarding the post which Tusch confirmed was written by him however he also made it clear to the police that he was not planning for a suicide, this was just to release his frustrations regarding the First Amendment made by Bank America and he wanted to get this in public.
The whole "testing" is a post hoc excuse for pulling a stunt that should have him charged with public mischief.
So it should be illegal to plan or attempt suicide, but legal to succeed? After all, nobody has been prosecuted for successfully committing suicide, have they?
Many civilized countries have removed attempted suicide from the criminal code. Here's a list, and 2 examples:
United States: In the past, many states had laws that regarded the act of suicide as a felony, but these laws were seldom enforced. In the 1980s, 30 out of 50 United States has no laws opposing suicide or attempting suicide. With that said, all 50 states had laws stating that assisted suicide is a felony. Currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in the United States.
Canada: In 1972, the act of suicide was removed as being a criminal action. In 1993, a law was created that prohibited any form of assisted suicide. There has been some controversy in recent years surrounding the ban of physician-assisted suicide. Many disabled individuals feel as though they should have a right to assisted suicide under Canadian law. Additionally anyone who compels or entices a person to commit suicide is subject to criminal penalty regardless of whether the individual carries through with the act. In 2014, physician-assisted suicide became legal only in the province of Quebec.
versus these countries:
North Korea: This is a country in which suicide rates are considerably lower than average. It is thought that the reason suicide rates are low is due to the burden suicide would have on a person’s family. It is thought that if someone commits suicide, it is possible for the government to purge or ostracize the rest of that person’s family and relatives. In this country there is strict social pressure and an unforgiving nature surrounding suicide.
Singapore: Anyone who even attempts suicide can be sent to prison for up to a full year.
There have been prior cases, such as one woman who posted that she was going to kill herself. She quickly gathered over 1,000 followers, many of them egging her on. Not ONE person called the authorities. She killed herself.
Agreed. That's my first thought - that if they're posting, you want to keep lines of communication open. Friends, family, or even a stranger might be able to write something that makes a difference. Cut them off, and everyone will think that the person has committed suicide. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Then again, there's the flip side - that people (including family members) might just say "Get over it."
The problem is that unless it's mandated by the government, instead of being voluntary, compliance won't happen because too many people, given a choice of doing extra hours or being out of a job, will do the extra hours.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite was the tag. Worked a lot better than today's javascript-powered scrollers.
There's the difference - our laws up here clearly impose both an obligation to help and immunization from lawsuits when you do.
As for the facebook algorithm, there is none. If you had actually read the article, here's what it says:
In case some user is having suicidal thoughts and mentions that in the Facebook posts and if a friend of that user reports it to Facebook then a third party will immediately review the post and Facebook would lock the suicidal user’s account and the user will be made to read Facebook’s suicide prevention materials.
It's humans all the way down ...
If you think someone is serious about committing suicide, and you have no other way for someone to contact them or raise the alarm, what are you going to do - sit on your tush and do nothing?
You just love changing the focus of the conversation away from the point at hand with bad analogies, don't you. So, back on track. First, mentioning suicide will only get you held for your own protection, if people believe the threat is credible. Given the information in the article, there was certainly sufficient reason to believe it was credible.
Now, let's look at your trolling her: Here's what I said:
Or, throwing a rock is legal, but publicly going n a rant about how your financial situation sucks and you're going to throw a rock through the window of a jewelry store and rob them ... not so much.
and here's what you say in response:
Throwing a rock isn't legal. It's vandalism or assault. Your logic is so absurd you are arguing that murder is legal because shooting a gun at a range is legal, so shooting a person is legal.
Now, you're wrong. Throwing a rock IS legal. Ever skip stones across a lake? Throwing a rock to commit vandalism is not.
Same as shooting a gun is legal, shooting a person with a gun is not (unless you're Dick Cheney). I never claimed otherwise.
And then you come to this conclusion:
You are a bad person. You don't discuss, you argue because you like attention. I like the truth, and discussion. Fuck off.
After turning around what I said to the exact opposite, you don't like the truth, you like to argue for the sake of arguing/ You (either purposefully or because you have a comprehension problem) try to twist what other people have said and build your false arguments on that.
I would suggest that i the future you take your own advice and f*ck off. You've done this over and over, and it's getting tiresome to try to reason with someone who has a history of misrepresenting my positions to provoke arguments. I'm beginning to wonder if there's something personal about your behavior.
No, you say "Yes officer, I know what speed I was going." No admission of anything.
Now the officer can't try to bump the speed up 10-20 miles an hour over what you were doing for a bigger ticket. At the very least, it will lessen your pain. Or they can decide to go after a bigger, stupider pigeon rather than waste time writing you up for a pittance that they know will probably be contested in court.
I'll take that last bit as a compliment :-)
However, when you are pulled over saying to the officer, 'I was not watching my speed, but I was moving with traffic', may well prevent you from ever having to appear in traffic court in the first place
As soon as you admit you weren't watching your speed, you're toast. You've admitted that you weren't watching your speed. That's why the first question they ask you is "Do you know how fast you were going?"
If it had been known that google was manipulating the search results to favor themselves, it would have been a huge credibility hit. From a business standpoint, it was a stupid move, not to mention that they violated the DBAD rule.
Whose fault is it? The laws here must be better than yours, because part of the law is a "duty to help", and no, you can't be sued if you genuinely get something wrong while lending assistance.
What next - saying that it's okay not to stop a blind person from falling into an open excavation?
or even caused her to commit suicide - weird, but that's a side effect.
Yeah, I was once prescribed anti-depression medicine that had "May cause suicide" as a specified side effect.
One of the problems of anti-depressants is that, in the first few days, it can relieve enough of the lethargy that a person can put a suicide plan in motion, while not immediately relieving the desire to kill yourself as fast. The first few days is the highest-risk period.
There's also too much profit for the professional nay-sayers to keep opposing it. Same as any cult where the leader needs to have a flock to fleece.
The worst part was that most of those self-appointed ethicists was that, just listening to them,, it should have been painfully the underlying objection was quasi-religious, No testing, no studies, no empirical evidence, just mental masturbation.
Ask anyone suffering from a chronic disease if they would like the genes involved to be edited out in their offspring - there will be plenty of motivated volunteers. After all, they have first-hand experience with what it's like with bad genes.
And yes, Heinlein was AMAZING !!!
First, not all diseases are caused by "some little organism inside your body trying reproduce at the cost of your cells." Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, vascular dementia, stroke, and a ton of other diseases are still diseases, even though "little buggies" didn't cause them.
And no, deep depression (months-long, not a week) is something that you just can't "snap yourself out of". CBT helps, but in the middle of a major depressive episode you're not in the best frame of mind to use the training you've learned from therapy.
You said it yourself - "a good person in a bad state of mind". That bad state of mind is a disorder when it gets to the point that it threatens your life, same as not being able to produce insulin is a disorder of the pancreas.
Now, what's wrong if antidepressants relieve some of the symptoms, allowing you to hope for better days? Suffering sucks - wanting to kill yourself for months on end wears you down. If antidepressants do nothing more than restore some chemical imbalance in the brain to help dull the urge to act on suicidal thoughts, so you can at least try to apply the lessons from CBT, why not?
And how many of the people, like yourself, who justify killing women with old testament quotes, are Jews? After all, the O.T. was the law god supposedly gave to the jews, his "chosen people", alone - and today most Jews certainly don't condone killing someone for adultery. Crappy attempt at trolling.
There have also been cases of paint being green.
And there are also cases of people too foolish to see the difference between someone killing themselves while people on the internet egg her on, and paint being green.
Same as there's nothing illegal about going to the bathroom, but what do you thing saying you're going to take a dump in the middle of rush hour on the Golden Gate bridge do, if it was believable? Or, throwing a rock is legal, but publicly going n a rant about how your financial situation sucks and you're going to throw a rock through the window of a jewelry store and rob them ... not so much.
Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute.
Get over yourself, Hans Reiser.
Secondly, what is missing from the story is this: did he actually have Bank America trouble?
He did. This stunt was to draw attention to his mortgage problems, not a test per se:
San Mateo police took Tusch in their custody and inquired him regarding the post which Tusch confirmed was written by him however he also made it clear to the police that he was not planning for a suicide, this was just to release his frustrations regarding the First Amendment made by Bank America and he wanted to get this in public.
The whole "testing" is a post hoc excuse for pulling a stunt that should have him charged with public mischief.
So it should be illegal to plan or attempt suicide, but legal to succeed? After all, nobody has been prosecuted for successfully committing suicide, have they?
Many civilized countries have removed attempted suicide from the criminal code. Here's a list, and 2 examples:
United States: In the past, many states had laws that regarded the act of suicide as a felony, but these laws were seldom enforced. In the 1980s, 30 out of 50 United States has no laws opposing suicide or attempting suicide. With that said, all 50 states had laws stating that assisted suicide is a felony. Currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in the United States.
Canada: In 1972, the act of suicide was removed as being a criminal action. In 1993, a law was created that prohibited any form of assisted suicide. There has been some controversy in recent years surrounding the ban of physician-assisted suicide. Many disabled individuals feel as though they should have a right to assisted suicide under Canadian law. Additionally anyone who compels or entices a person to commit suicide is subject to criminal penalty regardless of whether the individual carries through with the act. In 2014, physician-assisted suicide became legal only in the province of Quebec.
versus these countries:
North Korea: This is a country in which suicide rates are considerably lower than average. It is thought that the reason suicide rates are low is due to the burden suicide would have on a person’s family. It is thought that if someone commits suicide, it is possible for the government to purge or ostracize the rest of that person’s family and relatives. In this country there is strict social pressure and an unforgiving nature surrounding suicide.
Singapore: Anyone who even attempts suicide can be sent to prison for up to a full year.
I guess you've never been there. Major depression is an illness, not "the blues". It pushes people to suicide.
He wasn't held at Gitmo. "Very inhumane conditions" can mean anything without more details.
There have been prior cases, such as one woman who posted that she was going to kill herself. She quickly gathered over 1,000 followers, many of them egging her on. Not ONE person called the authorities. She killed herself.
Do you think THIS society will go along with that rather than pay less elsewhere?
Agreed. That's my first thought - that if they're posting, you want to keep lines of communication open. Friends, family, or even a stranger might be able to write something that makes a difference. Cut them off, and everyone will think that the person has committed suicide. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Then again, there's the flip side - that people (including family members) might just say "Get over it."
The job will come with glowing reviews from the lead-lined casket of the worker you replace.
The problem is that unless it's mandated by the government, instead of being voluntary, compliance won't happen because too many people, given a choice of doing extra hours or being out of a job, will do the extra hours.