Am emotionless for not caring about this girl threatening with suicide?

[Spectral]

14 year-old girls? Any age card you play can be used against you.

I think the age card's pretty valid when we're talking about cognitive development of 14 year olds. I really, really, really wouldn't expect much in the way of mature behavior.

I guess the real bottom line is, who give a fuck? Isn't this behavior exactly what we'd expect from high school with the current technology?

[semaphore]

The blame is equal in that all parties involved are entirely to blame. The girl did something (two things actually, taking/sending the photos and then yelling suicide) incredibly stupid. The boy did something incredibly stupid.

We're not blaming them on the basis of stupidity, that's completely and utterly retarded. She harmed no one by sending him those pictures. He harmed her by passing them out without her consent. The primary blame for the result, which is the harm caused (not "did something stupid"), rests with the boy.

The fact is that she did something stupid, but he did something wrong.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

I wouldn't have done it (male) and I also wouldn't want loser friends like either party. She shouldn't be a skank giving out these kinds of photos (especially to a teenage boy) and he shouldn't be a loser dickhead who passes them on by the boatload.

And she made the insane likely that it would get passed on. 14 year olds are idiots.

Yeah, let's all call her a skank because she was victimized by another person.

I think the age card's pretty valid when we're talking about cognitive development of 14 year olds. I really, really, really wouldn't expect much in the way of mature behavior.

I guess the real bottom line is, who give a fuck? Isn't this behavior exactly what we'd expect from high school with the current technology?

It's invalid when you're attempting to establish who is to blame when the other party is equally or less mature.

It's also invalid in the scenario because there's a difference between doing something foolish and doing something that victimizes another person.

[Spectral]

This doesn't change the fact that he was at fault. She was like, 12. Bashing her while giving the boy a free pass, as many of these presumably male posters are doing (with "we'd have done it too!"-esque sentiments) disgusts me.

Making a decision that has an outcome that's almost certain pretty much puts both people at fault, as far as fault goes. I'd be really impressed with a 14 year old boy that said, "hey, I have a semi-nude hot pic of my ex that I'm not going to show to anyone". That probably happens, but it's probably rare. Teenage boys are almost uniformly terrible.

[DEATHETERNAL]

We're not blaming them on the basis of stupidity, that's completely and utterly retarded. She harmed no one by sending him those pictures. He harmed her by passing them out without her consent. The primary blame for the result, which is the harm caused (not "did something stupid"), rests with the boy.

The fact is that she did something stupid, but he did something wrong.

She did something stupid and wrong. He did something stupid and wrong. The basis of blaming both fully is they are both in the wrong and both stupid.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

She did something stupid and wrong. He did something stupid and wrong. The basis of blaming both fully is they are both in the wrong and both stupid.

She didn't do anything wrong.

[semaphore]

She did something stupid and wrong.

Why was it wrong? Who has she hurt?

[Spectral]

It's invalid when you're attempting to establish who is to blame when the other party is equally or less mature.

I guess I just have almost no interest in assigning blame, so I'm not commenting about the same thing that other people are arguing.

[Rocko9]

We're not blaming them on the basis of stupidity, that's completely and utterly retarded. She harmed no one by sending him those pictures. He harmed her by passing them out without her consent. The primary blame for the result, which is the harm caused (not "did something stupid"), rests with the boy.

The fact is that she did something stupid, but he did something wrong.

What they both did was wrong

Yeah, let's all call her a skank because she was victimized by another person.

I didn't call her one, I said she shouldn't be one.

[DEATHETERNAL]

She didn't do anything wrong.

Why was it wrong? Who has she hurt?

It saddens me deeply that people think pre teens taking naked pictures of themselves to give to other people is not wrong. She harmed herself.

[Spectral]

I didn't call her one, I said she shouldn't be one.

That seems like a weasel way out.

[Deleted]

It saddens me deeply that people think pre teens taking naked pictures of themselves to give to other people is not wrong. She harmed herself.

So, if an adult takes pictures of herself/himself it's right, or atleast not wrong?

I don't see how it's wrong regardless of age, assuming it's the person taking pictures of themselves.

Although, if anything happens if the person shares their naked photos with someone else, and those photos are distributed by several parties, then that's the person's fault and not exactly the one who was distributing them. Atleast the main fault lies in the person who took the photos.

It kinda depends tbh...

[Deleted]

No, I don't have sympathy for dumb bimbos who threaten to take their life for some stupid shit they put themselves into. I welcome them to do it. Let the genepool end there.

[semaphore]

Making a decision that has an outcome that's almost certain pretty much puts both people at fault.

No one forced him to distribute those photos. That's why he's at fault.

And it's not anywhere near certain anyway. Think survey results say something like 20% does it.

---------- Post added 2013-01-28 at 03:31 AM ----------

It saddens me deeply that people think pre teens taking naked pictures of themselves to give to other people is not wrong. She harmed herself.

Someone seeing you semi-naked because you want them to, harms you how?

[Spectral]

No one forced him to distribute those photos. That's why he's at fault.

And it's not anywhere near certain anyway. Think survey results say something like 20% does it.

Let's go with that 20% number (I think it's low, but that's beside the point). If someone engages in an activity where there's a 20% chance of a negative outcome, are you generally inclined to sympathize with them when that outcome occurs? I am not.

[Tierbook]

i would sacrifice my friends for profit.... or at least sell their kidneys

[semaphore]

Let's go with that 20% number (I think it's low, but that's beside the point). If someone engages in an activity where there's a 20% chance of a negative outcome, are you generally inclined to sympathize with them when that outcome occurs? I am not.

I am when its a 12 year old.

I generally sympathise with preteens being haunted by stupid childhood mistakes (that isn't harming someone like, say, murder).

[Rocko9]

That seems like a weasel way out.

I would never refer to a girl like that. If I had a daughter that saw something I deemed wrong, I would put it in a way that she understood and would instill shame into it. I used skank in this example, because everyone here understand what it is, and it's a lighter way of saying a fucking hoebag.

[Spectral]

I am when its a 12 year old.

I generally sympathise with preteens being haunted by stupid childhood mistakes.

Do you cut some slack to preteens that make stupid mistakes that hurt others?

[Spectral]

I would never refer to a girl like that. If I had a daughter that saw something I deemed wrong, I would put it in a way that she understood and would instill shame into it. I used skank in this example, because everyone here understand what it is, and it's a lighter way of saying a fucking hoebag.

This seems pretty self contradictory.