On Mar 18, 2013, at 12:51, vvs...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 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? > How lovely. This is devolving to hn level masturbation about Aaron Schwartz.
