ABC says conspiracy web sites are contributing to mental health issues

Originally posted by Yoda411

Originally posted by interestedalways
Was it the employers fault???

Of course the employer is not at fault. Did the employer contribute to his actions?

No, the employer was a catalyst in a sense for his actions by laying him off, perhaps the straw that broke the camels back. Doesn't make the employer responsible for his choice, though.

Just like posters aren't responsible for another's actions.

Was Catcher in the Rye responsible for Mark Chapman killing John Lennon? Did it contribute???

A big problem in our society is the desire to blame others for personal decisions made by individuals. If more often individual responsibility was the norm I think this society would be healthier.

We can't save everyone from themselves. If this guy who killed himself live on his webcam wanted help he would have contacted a site that was a crisis line to try to talk him down, someone qualified. He didn't choose that. He is soley responsible for his choices, sad as that is to hear.

Had a website lured him in with multiple solicitations and such and then proceed to draw him into a group chat with members who had previous intent to drive this person to the brink with full knowledge of the administrators then it would be a situation that I may think of differently.

But that is not the case.

Originally posted by interestedalways
No, the employer was a catalyst in a sense for his actions by laying him off, perhaps the straw that broke the camels back. Doesn't make the employer responsible for his choice, though.

Let's take a step back for a moment if you don't mind just so I can clarify my argument.

Do I personally believe the employer to be at fault? Absolutely not.
Do I believe ATS causes people to go mental? Absolutely Not.
Do I believe the Internet is to blame for the online suicide? Absolutely Not.

What happened to this argument specifically, and pages ago, is that my stance on the issue is one of legality. Legally, you can say that the employer contributed to the individual shooting after being laid off. Mainly because of the definition of contribution. Inserting this word changes the argument 180degrees.

con⋅trib⋅ute
—Idiom
5. contribute to, to be an important factor in; help to cause: A sudden downpour contributed to the traffic jam.[1]

1. Dictionary.com - Contribute

Originally posted by Yoda411

Originally posted by interestedalways
No, the employer was a catalyst in a sense for his actions by laying him off, perhaps the straw that broke the camels back. Doesn't make the employer responsible for his choice, though.

Let's take a step back for a moment if you don't mind just so I can clarify my argument.

Do I personally believe the employer to be at fault? Absolutely not.
Do I believe ATS causes people to go mental? Absolutely Not.
Do I believe the Internet is to blame for the online suicide? Absolutely Not.

What happened to this argument specifically, and pages ago, is that my stance on the issue is one of legality. Legally, you can say that the employer contributed to the individual shooting after being laid off. Mainly because of the definition of contribution. Inserting this word changes the argument 180degrees.

con⋅trib⋅ute
—Idiom
5. contribute to, to be an important factor in; help to cause: A sudden downpour contributed to the traffic jam.[1]

1. Dictionary.com - Contribute

Life is full of contributions, isn't it? Here we the people are in a land of interactions with others, with weather situations, with alcohol contributing to drunk driving, etc......

So really what is the point of the article in the first place?

Many people who hear such as this report, or read the article don't break it down the way we have here. They hear what they want to hear, and being a society which seeks to hide from any ugly reality folks usually go looking for someone/something to blame. So many will look for legistation to save people from themselves.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 18-12-2008 by interestedalways]

reply to post by interestedalways


Indeed contributions happen from many places, on many things. The possibility of contribution to mental health issues is the mere point in which I have been debating. Since the definition of 'contribution' is merely to 'help to cause', rather than 'to cause' the possibility of the statement made by this thread is very real. I may point out once more that the article does not make this statement, but this thread attempts to speak for ABC. As for Net Neutrality, I hope I have made my stance on those pieces of legislation very clear.

The article was written by choice of the journalist, Lauren Cox. When journalists are not handed down legit news stories, they are given the journalistic freedom to write an article on the topic of choice. Lauren Cox decided to raise questions surrounding conspiracy theory websites and consulted/quoted two respected psychologists on their individual opinions.

Raise questions she did. When others have argued towards me that, "The article has no facts", the reason for that is because the questions indeed remain. She sought out to find the answer, but in psychology the answer is not so much yes or no. Instead in psychology the answer is dependent on who specifically are we talking about? These are all points in which the article raises.

Originally posted by Yoda411
Since the definition of 'contribution' is merely to 'help to cause', rather than 'to cause' the possibility of the statement made by this thread is very real.

See, based on the stuff posted about the white owl guy, he said he already had dark thoughts due to his upbringing before he came to the internet. He did not come to the internet and get all these ideas, he brought them with him. He did not need "contribution" because these dark thoughts were already his, they were already a part of who he was. Judging by everything about this case that you feel proves your point, which it doesn't, he was already on a downward spiral and in no way was "helped" by this site. As AI eluded to, it seems like you're trying to make ATS a scapegoat for what he did and it's not our responsibility to cater to those with mental issues. It's their responsibility to deal with their problems. It's unfortunate, but it had nothing to do with this site. It doesn't seem like there can be much doubt that he was well on his way down before he came to ATS and that is what you refuse to acknowledge.

I can tell you think like a lawyer because you love using deflection and now, you want to transfer blame from him to conspiracy sites and that's just wrong.

reply to post by Yoda411


" Indeed, individuals with mental illness' cannot determine truth from the fiction we are bombarded with 24/7. This is why I support the hypothesis in which they could be further mislead towards an incorrect perception of reality. "


I know this could never happen in this earth age,

but how much mental illness do you think there'd be,

if the news could not lie, and told the whole story and nothing but the whole story.


FWIW, had you heard of the reporters on fox who sued because the story was untrue, and the judge found the liars not guilty because there was no law against lying!!!! lmao...what a country......gotta love justice like that...

reply to post by toasted


Very Funny Toasted...

Believe me I know.

Bill O'Reilly... Bill O'Reilly...

Originally posted by Yoda411
Do you think they would have egged him on if not for the anonymity of the Internet?

Yes, it happens all the time. Ever been to middle school? Before this was also anonymous phone calls, notes, and letters, slam books, etc. I suppose phones, paper and writing utensils contribute to mental illness too?

Just because they used the internet to do it does not mean it has anything to do with conspiracy websites. They did something they could do with or without conspiracy websites. All they needed was any means to communicate. You cannot blame the rails for the engineers mistakes.

Originally posted by Yoda411
Would just like to add a few comments here...

I raise questions not to merely promote my own belief and opinion but to hopefully [and eventually] receive factual

then you need to listen to either me, the dictionary, or one of the other several people telling you that you do not understand what a fact is but do go on

evidence in which supports one side of the argument or the other to benefit the knowledge of us all.

The reason I raise such questions about ATS being a more prominent contributor to delusions is because of the followers of the theory that the world is ruled by lizard people and similar unfounded theories.

OK, show me one suicide that was because of Icke's theories. Just one.

When completely unfounded they may as well be deemed as delusional as us believing dogs rule the world and posting pictures of supposed tails in George Bush's rear end.

Such theories would never be presented as facts in the mainstream.

Depends on what you consider mainstream. Go to your local big book chain and ask where you can find David Icke. You might be suprised what you find.

P.S. Totally butchered some skin nearly off of my finger this evening so I won't be on here typing for a while. Once again thanks for this crazy intense discussion for all involved. I think in the end we all stand primarily for the same cause; to promote freedom of speech. That is one thing we can all agree upon, especially here on ATS. Be back later ATS.

Well, ok. I am still more concerned about news having some actual facts in it but hey. It was fun wasn't it?

[edit on 18-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I don't see a debate left in this argument.

We have all admitted a mentally ill individual can have his mental illness contributed to from any source including the news, newspapers, everywhere. Why can't you admit that ATS is a part of "everywhere"?

Tear apart my statements all you want. We've already come to a resolution, you just aren't ready to admit it.

reply to post by zysin5


They all lie and they all serve masters. As it was, they had to try pretty hard to make it a good one and make sure we wouldn't catch it. Now are we going to just let the have it easy? I really think that as long as they are going to lie, the people need to keep keeping them in check.

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

I don't see a debate left in this argument.

We have all admitted a mentally ill individual can have his mental illness contributed to from any source including the news, newspapers, everywhere. Why can't you admit that ATS is a part of "everywhere"?

Tear apart my statements all you want. We've already come to a resolution, you just aren't ready to admit it.

LOL. You and what, 3 other people came to an agreement. So far I count 9 that see it my way. How is that coming to the same conclusion. I did not come to that conclusion and neither did many others. This is what is called projection. Everything you just said is what we have been discussing you are. You are right, there is no debate to be had because you refuse to admit that you do not even know what facts are. I cannot debate the truth with the willfully ignorant. Enjoy your life. I hear people like you live longer anyway.

Originally posted by Yoda411
Could it be said that the online users fueled that individual's mental health issue?

Can I ask a serious question?

You want to say that conspiracy sites contributed because of the things people said to him on there right?

So, if they did it in person, on the playground, would that mean playgrounds contribute to mental illness?

Seriously, I am really asking you if this is what it is you are proposing.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


We are going to have to agree to disagree here I'm afraid angel.

I see a window of opportunity for many places to contribute to an individual's personal delusions. Does ATS make you wacko? No. Does the News make you wacko? No.

When you have a mental illness it can be fueled by really any source of information. ATS is just one of those sources of information. All sources of news can be counted as well, as you have so fittingly drilled into my head.

It's not about pointing the finger of blame for me. It's about the possibility of it happening - even if its 1 in 1,000,000 - and it's going to remain a possibility until inevitably ATS contributes to an individual's mental health issue.

Same could be said about Yahoo News, AOL news, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or any other source of information which could potentially back delusional claims. All of these sources also potentially back paranoid self-persecuted claims as well.

In conclusion, it has been fun debating with you but the topic has drawn cold. Until there is undoubted evidence which links ATS to mental health issues it will never be a fact. The only difference between you and me is that I leave the idea open as a possibility.

reply to post by Yoda411


Let me paraphrase you -"Angel, if I respond to that and attempt an answer I will either destroy my premise or greatly contradict myself so at this point I will give a wordy, yet empty, bow out speech and avoid it altogether."

Awwwe shucks. All I asked was a straight forward good ol' fashioned question. I wish I knew that was all I was supposed to do to get you to stop.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Yoda411
Could it be said that the online users fueled that individual's mental health issue?

Can I ask a serious question?

You want to say that conspiracy sites contributed because of the things people said to him on there right?

So, if they did it in person, on the playground, would that mean playgrounds contribute to mental illness?

Seriously, I am really asking you if this is what it is you are proposing.

The reason the playground metaphor is out of context is because you go to a playground to essentially run around and play.

You come to ATS to discuss theoretical concepts which many believe to be as factual as Scientific American.

Which one promotes delusion?

Additionally the website the web cam suicide individual frequented was a stomping grounds where people would collaboratively gang up on him and caused him some serious emotional issues.

Originally posted by Yoda411
The reason the playground metaphor is out of context is because you go to a playground to essentially run around and play.

You come to ATS to discuss theoretical concepts which many believe to be as factual as Scientific American.

Which one promotes delusion?

I call BS. Pedophiles go to the playground to hunt. Parents go to the playground to sit for a little while. Children go there to play. I come to ATS to play and have fun.

Who are you to decide the motives of the rest of us? You just say things that you want to be true but saying them does not make them so.

How do you respond.

I showed you people do not always go to a playground to play and that I come specifically to a conspiracy website to play and have fun.

Originally posted by Yoda411
Additionally the website the web cam suicide individual frequented was a stomping grounds where people would collaboratively gang up on him and caused him some serious emotional issues.

How is that the fault of the website? Screw the playground.

what if it was at school?

what if it was on the phone?

what if it was his FU$%*#@ boyscout troop?

Then who do you blame?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


'Tis a bad example unfortunately - the owner and Mod of the forums participated.

I know what your saying though, no need to further reinforce.

I don't think the article is blaming Simon Gray however, instead it would be the community in which supported the delusion/paranoia.