> Your argument is unfalsifiable. There is no evidence that if it hadn't > happened, it wouldn't have happened at all, other than the fact he > hadn't killed himself before he killed himself.
You are right of course. And you should note, that the opposite is unfalsifiable also. But the scientific method is unapplicable here because we will never know for sure anyway. > It is also reductio ad absurdum. Plenty of people are charged for > crimes they did not commit (and he was not innocent), and they do not > kill themselves. Yes, that is true also. But I didn't argue that there is substantial evidence that it was the cause. I just saying that in my "opinion" they bear the "moral" responsibility for his death. Nobody is going to push charges against them in court on these grounds. > He broke laws. Was the case against him absurd? Sure. Was the sought > after punishment way harsher than the crime? I think so. I agree with that part. > Does that > make anyone other than him responsible for him killing himself? No. I strongly disagree here. They abused their authority and broke public trust which might resulted in loss of life. Are you trying to say that nobody should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions? And they were advised that it could cause harm to his health, but chose not to act responsibly. If that's not enough for you, that's enough for me. > since when is this antsfans@ant... You are right and it's off-topic. But I didn't started it and if you chose to publicly argue with what I said before then I have the right to respond to your criticism, don't I? Or is it a one way avenue?
