Fixing a broken window and academic achievement are two very different things. You're only taking into account the monetary value of the education, and not where it will lead you going forward. If your passion is in a field where a college degree is required (doctor, architect, lawyer, etc.), and you know this is something you'll genuinely enjoy doing as a career, most say it's worth it. As is everything you must sacrifice in order to get to where you want to be in life. Jobs that don't require a degree still require substantial sacrifice in terms of effort and time put into your field. You need to take into account factors other than the dollar amount college costs to determine if it's "worth" the money. The only answer is that it depends on the person, what they want to go to college for, and how passionate they are in that field of study. Someone with a passion for business may not value a medical doctorate with a concentration in anesthesiology any more than a 2 year community college associates in general studies. Value is subjective in the society we currently sustain.
So you would've accepted "both are bad" as an answer to your initual question? I'm assuming no, but feel free to object.
That's touching more on education reform; which I agree America severely needs. Although sneakers wouldn't fall under my idea because I don't see how choice of sneaker alters your health. This is only a matter of making unhealthy things more expensive by means of taxing which would be used to fund the costs associated by those unhealthy habits that fall on the rest of society.
Every statistic I find says the homeless population is made up of no more than 22% veterans. Do you have a source for the figure you threw out?
This argument fails pretty badly for a number of reasons. The definition of natural resources is: materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain.. They are things that do indeed exist, the post just tries to say that since we're the ones that use them, only our "ingenuity" exists. This can then be said about any component/product relationship. A cake doesn't bake itself, so are ingredients nonexistant? A computer doesn't build itself, so circuitry's nonexistant? I get what the post intends to say, but saying they flat out "don't exist" just contradicts the very definition and can be replaced by too many things for the arument to make sense. We call that one Reductio ad Absurdum.
What I look for is their critical thinking skills and how well they can adapt to a situation. Good training for this is to just sit down with them one-on-one "interview" style and just have a conversation about a random topic; then a few minutes in completely change the topic and see how well they keep up, minding how engaged they are and how coherent their answers to any questions you ask are.
You can train anyone to follow a few procedures and go through the motions; but the ones you want are the ones that can hold their own when things go south, because they always do at some point.
The OP mentioned this was targetting youth unemployment. Most of these jobs would be entry level at best, so qualifications are out of the window for the most part aside from whatever volunteer work and high school club they could squeeze out onto a resume. The title is also what skills should employers look for. I work at a drug store and our manager hires who he feels does best at the interviews, and we've had 9 people turnover within a month this year alone(I believe my manager's an idiot with no business managing a store but that's for another day). I asked him to let me interview a few and the one he allowed me to hire on is moving up pretty soon. I made sure to make the interviews fairly lengthy to allow them time to A) get used to me and B) burn through all their pre-written interview bullshit and get to their actual personalities. The key is getting to know what kind of person they actually are; not what they can spend upwards of hours of practicing and preparing for what they think will be a 10 minute in and out interview.
Shallow interviews let the shallow people shine.
Please stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates as well, thanks.
I don't agree with anything that impairs cognitive function at all. In my perfect society, there is no alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, marijuana, junk food; none of it has a place in an advancing, developed society.
To your point on oil and coal, yes absolutely. Both are completely outdated sources of energy, and there should be substantially more investment and advancement in clean, renewable energy. You're straying from the point to attack what I'm guessing are your assumptions on my stance on other topics? And the part about PP looks more like a rant that I don't even understand the point of. Neither of which do I see as relevant, so stay on topic if you wish to remain in my debates.
A system such as this would push especially the poor to not buy into those habits. Buying simple ingredients in bulk and cooking at home is actually cheaper than filling up on "the dollar menu". The missing element is drive, and effort. Allowing the poor to stay poor will do nothing but hinder our advancement as a society.
Keep in mind many of these costs aren't on the unhealthy person alone. About half of the $300 billion from smoking is actually from the effects of second-hand smoke. And employers lose around $4 billion yearly from job absenteeism due to obese workers.
You believe in your God because you were raised to. There is no evidence and no reason whatsoever why you should believe in God besides it being indoctrinated into your personality from early childhood. So it isn't your fault you're so misguided, though it is your fault you've never stepped back and took a look at the evidence to make your own decision as to what's true. I can tell you haven't because you still believe.
The ontological argument is completely flawed. Especially in the video provided explaining it, there are many contradictions and baseless assumptions. I'll run through a few:
1) the video, right off the bat, claims a "maximally great being" could possibly exist; despite no evidence suggesting so. Just because something cannot be definitively proven false, doesn't mean it then becomes definitively true.
2) "all powerful" fallacy. If God was all poweful, could he create an object too heavy for himself to lift? Crumble, crumble..
3) "Morally perfect in every possible world" Morality is subjective and would change in each "possible world", therefore no two Gods in any two "possible worlds" would be the same; this contradicts the end of the video claiming a maximally great being exists in every possible world, since they wouldn't be the same being.
4) claiming a Maximally great being existing in one possible world correlates to one existing in every possible world is the largest reach in the video, which is saying something; there is absolutely nothing to suggest that every possible world is connected to eachother in any way. I'd like to see an argument for why a maximally great being existing in one possibility correlates to one existing in each one. This even contradicts the argument's own assumption that every possible world exists; If this were the case, then a world without a maximally great being would still exist, otherwise it wouldn't be every possible world. There's nothing to suggest a world without a maximally great being isn't logically incoherent, so claiming such would be another baseless assumption. And I prefer to stick with facts, and what's true.
I wrote each argument after only one full watch through and a couple of backtakes. I'm also at work so I was a bit rushed putting this together; however I'm confident this does not prove God exists, so I'll prepare more coherent arguments if you wish.
It's actually likelier that we're a simulation created by a previous intelligent species that has appeared to gain consciousness; statistically with a higher probability than there being either a God or no God. Although you could then ask if our creators' Universe has a God, but we then wouldn't be referring to our own reality.
so then you know for a scientific fact that there is no God
There is no scientific evidence suggesting there is one. If I told you I've proven objectively that God doesn't exist, would you believe that without evidence as well? If so that was a quick argument.
wouldn't you have to be God in order to make this statement....???
God of the Gaps #1,634,363,464
be sure to show your work
Funny coming from a claim with no scientific evidence backing. Also a God of the Gaps fallacy if I've ever seen one; "you don't have every answer? That proves God did it."
God of the gaps for the most part. You're forgetting to realize that time may not have always existed in our universe. The matter and everything physical we have in the Universe could have always been there, since before time; and through the idea of entropy, something happened and time was created as well as everything we know today. Religion was created to explain the world around people who lacked the scientific ability to understand it. The God you worship and the religion you follow was determined by where and when you were born, yet you choose to believe in it still. Also, you can't try and use scientific fact for a claim that has absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting its existence. That's paradoxical.
I understand your stance on self-worth and self-value based on this argument, however let me ask you this; if a decision must be made that one of two people have to die by an outside spectator, is there an objective answer to who should die? My principles say yes, because we must have an objective foundation for worth to advance as a species. Otherwise, the answer to my aforementioned question would be no, meaning that a serial murderer could be spared over an innocent, intelligent child simply because of subjective relations to each; if the murderer is a loved one of yours, should they be spared over the child? Such moral ambiguity leads to chaos and will result in the stagnation of humanity's advancement, in my opinion.
You're seemingly contradicting yourself in your arguments here.
"When they are stupid and/or a detriment to the progress of civilization." seems to contradict "There is no objective value to anything. Value is relative to the one doing the valuing." in the sense that you're claiming stupidity or having negative effects on the progress of civilization objectively changes your worth as a human being. If you are to claim humans have value at all, there must be something in comparison to relate that value to. If it's your principle that says intelligence and progression as a civilization are the ideal, and stupidity and regression as a civilization are the non-ideals, then you can objectively determine a human's (or any organism's) worth based on their contribution to either side.
There may have been some confusion in my wording, but I agree with your points mostly. I believe every living thing has a variable which we can call "worth". Worth is the sum of different variables which are characteristics of the individual organism such as intelligence, physical or mental acuity, level of health and etc.; and each species holds a constant that represents their place among other species and their ranking as a species overall. Humanity's constant is the highest of all species on Earth, due to our level of advancement and intelligence surpassing all others on Earth by extreme margins; I've yet to take time to theoretically quantify the specific margins between each species, but humanity would take 1st place by an extraordinary difference to 2nd place, whatever it may be. This leads to every human being on the same average level of worth, while also lending room for variance between humans. So yes, one human can be worth more than another based on what they offer as an individual; however, based on humanity's species constant, you'll very rarely find a case where a human life is worth less than another species' life. Even for cases such as murderers, rapists, or the like; they are still lent basic human rights and protections under most developed nations. However, if a dog so much as bites an innocent human being, they face possible euthanization; on a more substantial level, most people don't bat an eye when a mosquito or fly is killed for merely being in the same room as a human and causing that human even the slightest burden by simply surviving in its presence.
-note; this is a very superficial explanation of my thoughts on this subject which only covers objective worth. Subjective worth is drastically complex in comparison; which you seemed to mention in your 4th argument. I, however, believe subjective worth is only useful in fields where it is necessary(which is rather rare), and objective worth useful for nearly every aspect of society; one prime example being in criminal trials by jury. In the US, an attempt is made at each juror getting an objective value of worth on the defendant by the court ensuring that they don't know the defendant in any way personally, are prone to any sort of bias on the case, etc. All in all it's very complex and I just appreciate getting others' opinions on these matters, so thank you.
My stance on this is that a human life is worth a human life. I believe the life itself cannot be compared to any monetary value, but the value of its own and other species', rendering it a component in determining the "worth" of a living being. Intelligence, moral integrity, monetary worth, and physical or mental aptitude are all variables with (species' life) remaining constant, acting as a multiplier of sorts. A human life is worth a human life, and a cow life is worth a cow life; although one human can be more valuable than another, just the same as one cow can be more valuable than another. However, human life is more valuable than cow life, meaning most humans are more valuable than most cows. We have established ourselves as the apex species on Earth through our intelligence by means of possessing unrivaled mental aptitude, and in doing so we have claimed majority dominion over Earth with exception that, in my own opinion, we are obligated to preserve our land to the best of our ability sparing hinderance to our advancement as a species and make humane use of our planet's resources, as a species capable of thought outside of blind instinct should. The only use for human life is distinction that it is a human when considering their worth compared to another human or other living being, which I believe can differ.
Twitter, being an independent organization from the US government, is by all means allowed to censor any speech they so please. They aren't bound by the first amendment, so long as they aren't found to be discriminating against a protected class. Whether they are "responsible" for censoring lies within the corporation's own beliefs.
Current data shows this to not be the case, as a vast majority of violent criminal offenders (including rapists, serial killers, and terrorists) experienced traumatic events in their early lives. There is also evidence suggesting abused children are likelier to grow into abusive adults later in life. Your claim has no basis in assuming extreme trauma enhances one's ability to empathize; and your own personal accounts are meaningless, as is all anectodal evidence.
Let's say the moon landings were faked. The motivation, patriotism, and initiative spurred in those who believe them to be true isn't fake. Also, I don't think exposing the landings as fake would reverse all, if any, of those consequences. My question to you is, do you see substantial benefit from disproving the moon landings some claim to be faked? My position is that speculation is fine in moderation, but devoting extraordinary amounts of effort and time on subjects that would yield a rather insignificant positive effect on society is, in my opinion, completely futile.
A rather ambiguous scenario, seeing as you didn't commit the act yourself and were in an emergency situation. Many details can be lost when you've been without food or water for 10 days. I couldn't answer one way or another. In turn, I have a scenario for you;
Let's say someone kidnaps you, straps a collar bomb to you and orders you to rob a bank for him, without harming any civilians; in return he will allow you to live. He gives you a gun and, upon entering the bank, you get extremely nervous and start fidgeting with the collar and realize it isn't strapped as tight as you thought it was. You manage to slip the collar up over your neck and, instinctively, you turn around and throw the collar as hard as you can behind you and run out of the bank. The force from the collar hitting a piece of furniture in the bank causes the bomb to activate, which end up killing 3 people. Are you responsible for their deaths?
Your "mic drop" is extremely flawed. You don't even tie in God to it, either. I'll help you out;
No studies support the idea that time did not exist before the Big Bang; you're very confused as to what the Big Bang even is, apparently. The singularity that may have been what spurred the Big Bang contained matter, all of the matter in the universe to be precise. There also isn't any evidence to suggest the Universe even had a "cause". Yes, you can fool yourself into believing you can logically deduce that since the Universe exists, there must have been a beginning to it; but without proof you're just speculating. You're quick to disagree when scientists who devote their lives to studying the origin of the universe speculate on how it most likely came to be, but when you do it it's completely fine because your parents taught you about God and they know everything about the Universe. When the reality is if you were born in Ancient Greece you would have lived your life believing in Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and the like; if you were born in Afghanistan you'd praise Allah until you died; If you were born in Cambodia you'd be worshipping the Buddhist Yidams right now; if I told you I was God right now there's the same amount of evidence that I am than that God itself exists.
Mic drop.
I can see this FactLord is nothing more than a troll, but he did raise a valid point against you that you are seemingly unable to refute. Your own comment implies you hold an idea that belief in God simply stems from a fear of death, as a near-death experience would be what triggers a sudden, wholehearted faith in God. Do you believe in God because you are afraid to die and want to feel like the very short ~75 years you have in existence isn't the end?
Complete speculation. God of the Gaps. Simply another believer who believes because he was taught to believe by believers. The fact that you're willing to settle for "some unknown explanation" is deplorable. You believe in your god of choice because of where and when you were born. There is no evidence supporting a god, and consistently throughout history religious teachings shifted from "God did this" to "when it said God did this, it meant this"; ideas thought to have been the work of God has been shown time and time again to be nothing more than natural processes. As with the past, as will the future; the only thing we can do is stall time.
Side note: singularities are already theorized to be at the center of black holes and are perceivably of infinite density. It could just as well be the case that the Big Bang was the contents of our "current Universe" all contained in a single dominant black hole that reached some sort of peak mass and collapsed. Just a theory I pulled off the top of my head, but it's already stronger than any God theory as it's backed by at least some scientific data.
None of this is paradoxical, most of it is merely generalization, speculation, and hyperbole.
This also isn't a debate topic; it's a baseless, inaccurate rant.
The only reason you believe in the God you believe in is because of where you were born, who raised you, and the year you were born. You have no logical explanation for not believing in Zeus, Buddha, Shiva, Apollo, or any of the hundreds if not thousands of deities worshipped over time, yet you firmly believe you got it right despite no evidence proving so.
Also, you earlier stated in a previous post that everything has a beginning. Which means, logically, the Creator you believe in did as well. You also stated that to make something from nothing you need God. Therefore the god you believe in should have been created by another, more powerful god, and so on. Slapping God at the beginning of existence doesn't work, no matter how you try to word it.
"Science of the gaps" when it comes to evolution? I don't believe you fully understand what natural selection and evolution are. They are proven fact and is the reason homo sapiens are how they are today; refuting that isn't really an option, you can only deny science to a point.
Also, your ignorance on black holes doesn't mean you can't do research on them. A simple search will show you that black holes contain a singularity which is a single point in space, despite taking in extreme amounts of matter, thereby condensing the density of that singularity to infinity, which violates laws of conservation of mass. An entity with infinite density should be seen to have infinite mass, which isn't the case with a black hole. Meaning a black hole singularity with 2 "units" of mass has the same density as a black hole singularity with 2 billion "units" of mass.
Does this pertain only to government assisted suicide? Because taking the question as is, the objective answer is no because there's no way to uphold giving everyone the right to choose specifically how and when they'll die; to do so requires omnipotence. If someone alive today chose to die in 300 years, how do we go about upholding their rights to make it so? Making something a right means it has to be upholdable. If the question was, "Should people have the right to choose government-assisted suicide as a way out?" if that's what you are referring to, my answer would be yes but with stipulations such as they have no outstanding debt, pending court dates or incarceration sentences/community service, children they are legally guardianing and providing for 51% or more of their resources, etc..
But the problem I see comes with conveying intent. Would someone trying to save you not show signs of wanting to save you, be it through facial expressions, verbal communication, etc.? Likewise with someone trying to kill you. It could also be inferred that both of your situations happen far less likely than their inverse counterparts. Meaning, I'm fairly certain more people who are trying to kill someone ends up killing them than ends up saving their life accidentally. Equally, I'm fairly certain more people who are trying to save someone end up helping them in some way rather than ending up putting them in more peril. Although this is speculation, I believe this to be at least semi-accurate through personal experience and logical reasoning.
My point here is my position is that every circumstance should be taken as is and interpreted. If someone saves you, you should admire the effort they expended to do so. If someone puts you in peril, you should analyze potential dangers surrounding contact with them in the future. Of course, this is the very bare bones of it. Logically reasoning these cases with an uncountable number of other factors would be significantly more accurate, obviously.
The thing about cases such as drunk driving is that you bring in stimulants and the idea of impairment emerges; with the higher addition of factors brings a higher level of ambiguity. That's what interest me about these super simplified scenarios, it seems to show just how wide a gap intention can create in what, objectively, are three completely identicle scenarios. You set down a glass, a roommate rushes, the glass falls, the roommate falls.
What I find fascinating about such a scenario is that, though it can be called clear cut, that's assuming one is positive on the intent of the perpetrator. If C) was your intent, but you claim B), who or what is there to object? The idea that something as completely intangible and indistuingishable to anyone but yourself as your intentions in this scenario, and the fact that your intent can make the difference between no consequences and most to all of your life in prison, is completely intriguing. Especially considering that, disregarding intent, you're left with three completely identicle scenarios in every way; but in at least one of those identicle scenarios, you'll be sent to prison for most to the rest of your life.
All in all, you could claim it was simply an accident and get away with murder; it seems the making of the perfect murderer is having the ability to not reveal your intent.
Let's say we never find out how the Universe actually originated; does this prove God's existence? The absence of knowledge shouldn't be a prompt to shove "God did it" in its place. This premise is its entirely own fallacy, the God of the Gaps. Back before we knew much of anything about our Universe, humanity kept shoving God's hand into the crevices they couldn't explain; from lightning to earthquakes to empty space. The origin of the Universe is no different. There are things in the Universe that just plain don't make sense to us right now; for instance, the idea behind a black hole is there is a singularity at its center, which compresses all finite amounts of matter into infinite density; which breaks the density principle that p=m/v. This goes completely against all known laws of physics and logic; is it your position that this is the work of God?
"something can't exist without a creator". What is your proof or reasoning for this, if I may ask?
Did you not read where I put that you can check up on the source to ensure what I used from it holds current? The source I gave you was to show second hand smoke is labelled a carcinogen, which holds true to today. Please inform me on how I'm ignorant. Simply typing "second hand smoke effects" will allot you numerous sources that back any figures I give.
I can appreciate one who seeks to challenge misinformation, but your efforts in this instance is misplaced. I can't help but feel another reason for you to challenge me, but I won't press you for that.
Your words, and I quote "and shows no link between second hand smoke and cancer". You mean to now tell me this wasn't to suggest second-hand smoke isn't carcinogenic? Also, one of your articles is from 2013; my sources are current to this year and show thousands of people die every year from cancer caused by second-hand smoking.
If I may ask, what's your stake in defending second-hand smoking so adamantly? Are you a smoker yourself? Do you think it'd be infringing our rights to ban smoking? I'm curious.
"Being lazy". You're just cherry picking, my friend.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent)". Straight from the given source, though feel free to research it and the claims yourself. If you can refute this at all, I'll start to take your argument half-seriously. Until then, you're cherry-picking and spreading misinformation and I won't placate that; it only leads to your detrimental opinions to spread. Some people may read this and actually agree with you and that's frightening.
Let's say you're partually right in your first point; However, addiction is different for different people. Someone can be addicted to cigarettes stronger than a crack addict is addicted to crack, it varies greatly from person to person. Also, I'm sorry, but neither of your sources are evidence. Link me an actual study, or even a government or .edu/.gov/.org website. Using news media sites to support your claim is silly.
If you're meaning to imply second-hand smoking isn't dangerous, you're severely ignorant on this subject and cherry pick what you choose to believe very heavily. It's fine wanting to be right, but there are times when you need to swallow your pride and accept that you're wrong. Search "second hand smoking effects" and click on nothing but .gov, .net, .org, or .edu sites; Or any legitimate research studies that show corrolation with other studies to prove your claim.
Using a Forbes and Slate article to try and prove your point.. That's laughable.
Let's say, for now, we ignore everything aside from the line "People are actively making the choice to buy another cigarette, another drink, another crack rock...".
I'm inclined to ask, do you not know what addiction is? Nor what effects is has on the human brain? Your ignorance on this subject is severely showing. You're also failing to mention second-hand smoking at all, which is even more dangerous than first-hand smoking due to the fact that victims of second-hand smoking don't smoke. What are your thoughts on this? Or do you not care because you didn't research the subject and simply mashed together whatever popped into your head at the time of reading the headline?
Let's say you did even a little research on the subject beforehand; as you know, many federal health organizations have statistics on the effects of second hand smoking. How do they know it was second-hand smoking, you ask? When a patient is diagnosed with lung cancer and physicians find that their lungs are identical to a smokers', even though they say they've never smoked in their lives, what would you assume is the cause? It doesn't take more than a bit of thought to put 1+1 together and get 2. Your second argument pertains to the idea that simply because something carries negative effects, it should be banned. This is not my position. My position is that when an entity, object or idea carries negative consequences that outweigh the positives in terms of maintaining health, happiness, and advancement levels, it should be labelled a detriment to society and disposed of. In your example of driving, for instance; cars are being made safer and safer for the environment every year, and are heavily regulated in terms of safety standards. Are cigarettes being made safer as time progresses? No. Do cigarettes provide a highly essential function to much of modern society and globalization, leading to the advancement of our civilization? I don't believe so. The positive aspects automotive vehicles bring a developed or developing society outweighs the negative effects they carry; with one of the top contributors to that being drunk driving, and it is also my position that alcohol should either be much more heavily regulated, if not banned as well. Make a case where you can justify substances such as meth and cocaine being illegal, but not cigarettes. The catch is you can't be hypocritical in your argument, even once.
Update: If you still aren't inclined to take my word on the dangers of second-hand smoking, and fail to do any research on the subject yourself, I've compiled a few government and organization sites that show you the statistics.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-secondhand-smoke.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html
If you can find evidence backed by legitimate organizations that disprove the evidence provided by sources I provided, please share and I'll quickly begin to question my entire existence; as I've been unable to find much that proves otherwise that isn't simply misinformation by smokers or those on behalf of tobacco companies.
Let's say smoking, cigarettes and alike tobacco products, were banned federally today in the US. Aside from the withdrawal effects all addicted smokers would endure(keeping with your "consequences" phrase), what negative effects would you see? Would these be greater than the positive effects of banning something so destructive to society?
Let's say a close relative or friend of yours dies somewhere within the 7000+ people in the US who die from lung cancer every year caused by second-hand smoking or the 30,000+ who die annually from heart disease caused directly by second-hand smoking; from people you claim are taking responsibility "for their own lives". Are you allowing them responsibility over the lives of others, as well? Not to mention, "how quickly and by what method they end them"?.
Let's say one day you discover that your smoking addiction directly led to another's death; would your position on smoking change? You mention nobody else bearing the cost of your smoking, but you're speaking purely monetarily. You aren't taking into account that second-hand smoking kills tens of thousands of people every year just in the US. Even if your rebuttal is "I only smoke indoors, alone, away from anyone else, etc." this doesn't lessen how dangerous smoking is for the atmosphere and others taking into account not everyone smokes alone, indoors, away from contact from any other humans or animals.
Let's say such a case as this went to court, with the younger gentleman being tried for manslaughter, and you were part of the jury. What would your position as a juror on this case be? Would you vote guilty, not guilty, or hold that the charges should be dropped and re-filed as second, or potentially first, degree murder?
Let's say the younger gentleman was aware of numerous heart conditions the old man was suffering from, and intended for his forecast to cause the elder to die of a heart attack. Does simply knowing the intent of the perpetrator alter your position on this scenario at all? Keep in mind that omitting information doesn't necessarily deny it, so this could very well have been the case in the original scenario, but left out for any number of reasons.
Let's say, instead of a younger and elderly man, we'll make it two teenagers. If one bullies the other, strictly verbally/online, no physical abuse; and the victim commits suicide and makes it clearly known that the reason for committing suicide is from the abuse, is the bully at fault for their death? Does this scenario change your position on the aforementioned? In other words, does what you specifically say to a person(or how, for how long, or why you say something to a person) matter in these instances?
Let's say the young man were to admit he intended for the "threat" to cause the man to have a heart attack, in a scenario such as this; the young man is the elder's spoiled grandson. The grandson knows of his grandfathers' numerous heart conditions, and enacts the aforementioned scenario with the intention of the elder dying for the purpose of the grandson having claim on his inheritance. Would this change your position at all?
