Originally posted by banyan
reply to post by UFOpsychiczebra
i see your point, but i disagree. this is ATS for one thing...an alternative topic website of potentially bizarre or far-fetched forums. bogus, daft
thoughts or advice are nigh expected, ... you can't just censor the posts that seem intellectually inferior to oneself, because it might be a gem and
quite needed for the poster or for the reader, even just on a mental "i'm not alone in thought" level.
I understand what you are saying but you seem to have misunderstood my point. Far fetched theories, wild ideas are fine, in their correct place on the
boards, which was why I suggested that those posts ought to be in the 'Rant' thread or 'The Grey Area' or even 'General chit chat‘, or even in
another appropriate forum. However, NOT in a psychology forum. For example if someone states that they personally hear voices and that those voices
tell them to do whatever, that is fine in 'The Gray Area' or 'Rant' but if they then say that the voices they hear are loosely connected to a less
than poor understanding of psychological theory and that they have researched the 'fact' that everyone at ATS has those voices in their head and
they link that with Freud and goodness knows who else in a pathetic attempt to give weight to their so called 'theories' (that they have in fact
patched together from a mish-mash of pop pseudo psychological ideas) then it is wrong that it is posted in the Psychology forum. Whenever those type
of pop pseudo psychology posters start they only want masses of replies from 'followers' who just agree with them and push their points total up,
they are never prepared to debate their so called theories and they simply churn out more and more pseudo logic in a game of smoke and mirrors that
only impresses their 'followers' more but in fact is only a game of deflection on their part.
Another nasty aspect of those type of posters is that they can spot the vulnerable and highly suggestible members a mile off and they encourage them
in their threads. They know exactly what they doing. It is simply morally wrong, and in many cases also legally wrong, to take advantage of those who
are mentally unstable or otherwise mentally vulnerable. If those posters had any genuine motives they would not attempt to take advantage of those
One of the basics of ATS is the value of appropriate posting in appropriate areas. This prevents a flood of off topic wild ramblings under the banner
of another subject just to get attention, and unwarranted credit to the OP.
secondly, while i do think we should always help those that we can, we cannot be responsible for an individual's action unless we told them to do
something in a very direct, to-the-point way.
That depends on whether you think of it morally or legally. Morally you are responsible in part. We are all responsible for our actions and the effect
of those actions on others. It is extremely naive to believe that you could function as normal human being in this world without being responsible for
your effect on others. Are you honestly suggesting that you believe for example that if you love someone you do not affect them in some way? Your
friends? Others you know? Or do you seriously go through live thinking that your actions only matter to you? A note here is that an actual belief in
your actions being completely inconsequential to others is related to psychopathic behaviour.
And legally you could be held responsible if a causal link can be shown. You have a reasonable duty to your behaviour and actions and their effects on
if i posted on a forum for someone to go kill themselves, and if i wrote, "go kill yourself, [insert name here]" i might be more guilty in any
reciprocating action. if i post an out-there theory on the pending doom of our race from a catastrophic invasion where aliens will rape and then
slaughter all of humanity, all of this happening by sunrise.....would i be responsible if someone offed themselves that night to not have to go
through alien rapings and slaughter?
Again the answer to that is in part you would be responsible yes. In the same way you would be responsible if you telephoned in a false bomb threat
which led to someone rushing down stairs in that building because of your bomb scare and breaking their leg. The key point here being that you were
involved in their decision to act even if you did not force them directly. Also, any reasonable person would understand that most coercion is far more
subtle but no less ineffective. Your example is like saying that if someone held a gun to your head and said you have to do something that they are
not responsible (as well as you) because you could have refused.
the answer is grey. i might have helped them get to the point of no return, but if they were that eager to believe without any proof from me besides
my words...they were just looking for an excuse to kill themselves. a damaged mind will bring rationality to any asinine action.
Your comments show a complete lack of understanding of the way suicidal thoughts work. Also, your total disregard and lack of compassion for those not
as mentally well as yourself is appalling. Using your line of argument you would condone the taunting of someone with an IQ that places them in the
mentally disabled range just because you consider they would end up doing something stupid eventually.
So, you think for example that telling someone who is severely depressed that their life is pointless and then follow that with scare tactics, then
throw in a bit of bad news to 'finish them off', who then kills themselves, would , a) not be your responsibility and b) acceptable because they
were mentally unstable.
Cruelty, manipulation of power (mental or otherwise) and ridicule of others is NOT acceptable just because the person is mentally unstable or
'damaged'. We are judged by how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves and quite rightly so.
A general note here, people do well to remember that at the other side of these posts are REAL people. Treat them as such.