Rant and Rave Think Tank 2

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Haahaa PK,
I used to have those a lot! Then I got so embarrassed one time that I almost stopped speaking to new people. I finally got over it. It happens and sometimes more than others.

[physco kid]

They just don't seem to stop coming to me. I make myself regret something I do or say.

[Jeff_in_Time]

I wonder if evil is formed at birth?Reading Mango's post is it more about environment?Was Hitler created by his environment or was the environment created by him later on? He had lots of supporters to carry his views out, people as warped.

I think it's a combination of environment and choice. After all- There are people who had terrible childhoods but became great and, there are others who had great childhoods but became terrible. My guess is that Hitler's anger began by feeling inadequate; he did poorly in school- largely out of spite; had no talent for art and no prerequisites to pursue architecture- he blamed others and sought revenge- blind revenge. The Nazi party wasn't the majority when they seized power (some 30%?) yet, it was too large to be ignored. Many historians believe that the seeds of WWII were planted in the first Great War. There was a world depression and Germany was required to pay reparations for WWI- increasing economic stress. Many felt the sting of humiliation (the opposite is domination/superior race) and, there were many angry young men; ripe for recruitment as Nazis. They relished opportunity for violence- still do if we observe the Neo-Nazis allowed to march in our own streets- spewing hate and spoiling for a fight.

Nice post, B4W.
You are right, he made a choice but his outcome could have been better if he wanted a different path.
Hitler claimed he was doing God's work too, didn't he? Or maybe it was playing to his masses to invoke God to gain support?
I think Hitler was Catholic? someone can correct me if wrong.
I agree with you the people's own anger wanted a spokesman to lead them and Hitler fit the bill.

I found this online I will quote some of it, because there were many ways to have gone about killing Hitler even in his mother's womb.
But is it fair to kill a baby Hilter or his mother when they were not guilty of any sins or crimes then?

Anyone with any moral sense would agree that the world would have been a much better place had Hitler never been born. What if you had the ability to make that sentiment a reality?Under what circumstances do you think it would be morally justified to kill to prevent the Final Solution (and for those who can’t get past the emotional problem of what it would be like to personally pull the trigger, assume that you could send someone else to perform the deed)?

1. It’s July 20, 1888, the day of Hitler’s conception. Is it morally permissible to kill his father prior to copulating with Mrs. Hitler so as to prevent Hitler’s conception?
2. It’s February 20, 1889, and Mrs. Hitler is seven months pregnant with Hitler. Would it morally acceptable to kill er then?
3. It’s February 20, 1889, and Mrs. Hitler is seven months pregnant with Hitler. Would it morally acceptable to shoot Mrs. Hitler in the womb in such a way that would spare her life, but ensure that it kills the unborn baby Hitler?
4. It’s July 20, 1889, and Hitler is three months old. Would it be moral to kill baby Hitler?
5. What if it was 1908 and Hitler is an adult? Would it be morally acceptable to kill him then, knowing what he would do in just a few more decades? (Assume that if you don’t kill him now, you’ll never have another chance to kill him once he starts his murderous rampage that leads to WWII and the Holocaust.)

Why or why not? Remember, the lives of 11 million people are on the line (not even including the millions who died in WWII trying to stop Hitler)! If you don’t kill baby Hitler or his mother, all those people will die.

Why or why not? Remember, the lives of 11 million people are on the line (not even including the millions who died in WWII trying to stop Hitler)! If you don’t kill baby Hitler or his mother, all those people will die.

And here’s a couple more alternatives to consider that assume Hitler has already risen to power and began killing innocent people. Would it be moral to kill Hitler in either of the following scenarios:

1. It’s 1940, and Hitler has killed thousands of those who were infirm and elderly. Would it be morally acceptable to kill Hitler at this point?
2. What if Hitler did not commit suicide, but lived to see the end of the war. Would it be morally acceptable to kill him after he had successfully killed 11 million people?

Why or why not?

I like this question because it reveals a lot about our moral theory. In some cases, it will even bring to our awareness the level of cognitive dissonance between the moral theory we subscribe to with our lips and the moral theory we subscribe to with our actions and desires. It also demonstrates how difficult it can be to separate emotion from reason in moral inquiries.

Sorry if peeps are bored with this topic but I find it interesting that so many would chose Hitler( for obvious reasonings.)

[Jeff_in_Time]

Tossing question in...

Do you ever have a Your-foot-in mouth moment? (Meaning you say something you regret or it comes back at you)

I never really regret my words but I regret if they hurt anothers feelings.
I could soften my approach according to whom I am dealing with at times.

@ Smiles- I can't think of any TV character, I'll think and tell ya next visit

[Brake4Wind]

I like this question because it reveals a lot about our moral theory. In some cases, it will even bring to our awareness the level of cognitive dissonance between the moral theory we subscribe to with our lips and the moral theory we subscribe to with our actions and desires. It also demonstrates how difficult it can be to separate emotion from reason in moral inquiries.

Good questions Jeff! I don't think I'm able to separate emotion from reason when it comes to moral choices. I couldn't kill Hitler as a child or his parents (they didn't commit crimes). If I were say- in the resistance, yes, given the chance, I think I would take him out and, I'd want to take a whole bunch of his fellow Nazis with him. Knowing what I know now, I'd still be worried about that butterfly effect- there would be so many others ready to step in and continue his "work"- they might not have made the same mistakes and more may have died (the internal plots against him for bad decisions). At the end of the war (if he had lived) yes, I do think it moral to execute him (weren't others in his regime?) I suspect the allies may have purposefully sent in maximum punishment by allowing Stalin to get to Berlin first. At the end, the Germans were trying to surrender to the Americans and British- terrified of Stalin's forces and for good reason.

[Brake4Wind]

physco kid wrote:Tossing question in... Do you ever have a Your-foot-in mouth moment?

LOL- Some days I just open my mouth to change feet!

@ Smiles- No desire to meet anyone in particular but did run into Danny DaVito in the grocery store- literally- with our grocery carts. He then put on this hilarious act; snarling, pretending to defend himself, revving up his cart, punching mine and made his escape- with one last sinister peek around the corner. That man is a great comedian!

[Brake4Wind]

Here's a little twist on Jeff's question- How evil are YOU?

This comes from an experiment duplicated from a psychiatrist's test from the 1950's (The Discovery Channel, I think).
The last experiment had a much smaller sample of a dozen or so (the first was large- 1,000 or more).

In the experiment there were 2 main actors- one a doctor, older, distinguished, very officious. His experiment was to test if people learned faster by causing pain for a wrong answer- all wrong answers meant getting an electrical shock and, it increased in intensity. The second actor was the person receiving the electric shock but, the study group didn't know this, nor did they know what was involved before volunteering but, also told that they could stop at any time.

A 'random' selection was made to choose which person (actor or study participant) would receive or administer the shock. It was rigged so the actor always received the shock and the actor always noted concern about a mild heart ailment (he actually had no shock but acted as if he did and could only be heard, not seen).

Only one woman in the study group refused to participate, considered it immoral and could not be persuaded. As the study progressed, the actor kept getting the wrong answers and the level of shock was increased- at first mild (hmm) then (OUCH!) then (that really hurt!) until the actor shrieked and began to refer to his heart ailment, expressing fear. People turned to the doctor who insisted they must continue- it only hurts but won't kill him. At that point, only one other refused to continue; all others shocked him until the doctor told them to stop (the actor screaming). At the end of the experiment the study group was told the truth. The guy that stopped said he was an attorney and knew he couldn't be forced to continue. When asked who was at fault, the doctor who encouraged them or the individual who continued, only one took personal responsibility- all others blamed the doctor- just following HIS instructions.

In the original ('50's) experiment- the psychiatrist concluded that the Nazis would have no problem finding people to operate their death camps in any average American city. A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions. In the '50's experiment it was over 70%- when the memory of the Holocaust was fresh. "Never again"? Is anyone so sure?

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

That's interesting B4W. Isn't that called dissonance theory? I would not participate in that type of experiment. I would probably be the first one to say nuu...uhhh!

The same thing is true with people that claim to be a police officer or detective. People will often just go along with whatever they request if the false officer say's it is to apprehend a dangerous subject. Tools

[physco kid]

Here's a little twist on Jeff's question- How evil are YOU?

This comes from an experiment duplicated from a psychiatrist's test from the 1950's (The Discovery Channel, I think).
The last experiment had a much smaller sample of a dozen or so (the first was large- 1,000 or more).

In the experiment there were 2 main actors- one a doctor, older, distinguished, very officious. His experiment was to test if people learned faster by causing pain for a wrong answer- all wrong answers meant getting an electrical shock and, it increased in intensity. The second actor was the person receiving the electric shock but, the study group didn't know this, nor did they know what was involved before volunteering but, also told that they could stop at any time.

A 'random' selection was made to choose which person (actor or study participant) would receive or administer the shock. It was rigged so the actor always received the shock and the actor always noted concern about a mild heart ailment (he actually had no shock but acted as if he did and could only be heard, not seen).

Only one woman in the study group refused to participate, considered it immoral and could not be persuaded. As the study progressed, the actor kept getting the wrong answers and the level of shock was increased- at first mild (hmm) then (OUCH!) then (that really hurt!) until the actor shrieked and began to refer to his heart ailment, expressing fear. People turned to the doctor who insisted they must continue- it only hurts but won't kill him. At that point, only one other refused to continue; all others shocked him until the doctor told them to stop (the actor screaming). At the end of the experiment the study group was told the truth. The guy that stopped said he was an attorney and knew he couldn't be forced to continue. When asked who was at fault, the doctor who encouraged them or the individual who continued, only one took personal responsibility- all others blamed the doctor- just following HIS instructions.

In the original ('50's) experiment- the psychiatrist concluded that the Nazis would have no problem finding people to operate their death camps in any average American city. A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions. In the '50's experiment it was over 70%- when the memory of the Holocaust was fresh. "Never again"? Is anyone so sure?

Other then my sadist streak I don't consider myself evil. More like broken and confused trying to find who I am.

Oi wow that sounds painful. How interesting though.

[Brake4Wind]

That's interesting B4W. Isn't that called dissonance theory? I would not participate in that type of experiment. I would probably be the first one to say nuu...uhhh!
The same thing is true with people that claim to be a police officer or detective. People will often just go along with whatever they request if the false officer say's it is to apprehend a dangerous subject. Tools

Well, sort of Krsty but it runs deeper; in cognitive dissonance, we aren't so much fooled by another, we are really fooling ourselves. There is an inconsistency between the moral principles we say we will uphold and what we actually do when tested. The one woman who refused to participate said that even one shock is going too far and from there, where does it stop? She couldn't/ wouldn't be pressured from the start and said, "I don't care if you pay me or not".

The attorney was considering his legal options- himself- if he can be sued (quite possibly if the man had a heart attack); from the start, they made it very clear that anyone can stop at any time (and still be paid). All others folded under peer pressure (very easily); the doctor saying, "it just hurts... he won't die". Just hurts? The man was wailing. Only one man admitted that he could and should have stopped- that was HIS fault and he felt remorse. Most were like children- 'HE made me do it'. One was belligerent in justifying his actions, "Hey, I was willing to be shocked too- that was the deal".

You are right about how easily we cave in to a perceived authority, especially police. That ploy was used often by serial killers to lure their victims. It's unknown how many during Hitler's regime followed out of fear or willingly. (Hence the 1950's experiment to test an average American- 70% is very high). What we do know is at the fall of the Third Reich, suddenly no Nazi patriots could be found. Average citizens denied all knowledge of large death camps at the outskirts of their towns. (The smell from crematoriums! And no local guards? Hmm) Many today deny that the Holocaust ever happened; despite the films, photos, crematoriums, mass graves, liberators' eye-witness testimony... it's total denial. "We couldn't/ wouldn't/ didn't do THAT".

@ PK- hang in there! We are all confused and never REALLY sure of ourselves. Yes, we are all a little crazy- it's the human condition. Oh, and the man being shocked was only pretending- it was the others being (morally) tested.

[tropicalheatwave]

Here's a little twist on Jeff's question- How evil are YOU?

This comes from an experiment duplicated from a psychiatrist's test from the 1950's (The Discovery Channel, I think).
The last experiment had a much smaller sample of a dozen or so (the first was large- 1,000 or more).

In the experiment there were 2 main actors- one a doctor, older, distinguished, very officious. His experiment was to test if people learned faster by causing pain for a wrong answer- all wrong answers meant getting an electrical shock and, it increased in intensity. The second actor was the person receiving the electric shock but, the study group didn't know this, nor did they know what was involved before volunteering but, also told that they could stop at any time.

A 'random' selection was made to choose which person (actor or study participant) would receive or administer the shock. It was rigged so the actor always received the shock and the actor always noted concern about a mild heart ailment (he actually had no shock but acted as if he did and could only be heard, not seen).

Only one woman in the study group refused to participate, considered it immoral and could not be persuaded. As the study progressed, the actor kept getting the wrong answers and the level of shock was increased- at first mild (hmm) then (OUCH!) then (that really hurt!) until the actor shrieked and began to refer to his heart ailment, expressing fear. People turned to the doctor who insisted they must continue- it only hurts but won't kill him. At that point, only one other refused to continue; all others shocked him until the doctor told them to stop (the actor screaming). At the end of the experiment the study group was told the truth. The guy that stopped said he was an attorney and knew he couldn't be forced to continue. When asked who was at fault, the doctor who encouraged them or the individual who continued, only one took personal responsibility- all others blamed the doctor- just following HIS instructions.

In the original ('50's) experiment- the psychiatrist concluded that the Nazis would have no problem finding people to operate their death camps in any average American city. A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions. In the '50's experiment it was over 70%- when the memory of the Holocaust was fresh. "Never again"? Is anyone so sure?

i would have fried his ass. someone willing to recieve an electric shock with a heart problem is not only an idiot but a masochist. therefore deserves to be shocked. maybe with each shock he'll realize how foolish he is. even if he is doing this for money. out of all the things you can do to make money, you choose to harm yourself with a heart problem? who does that? thats how i would have felt during the experiment.

i'm just messin around but seriously i'm not sure how i would have handled that because it would have appeared suspicious from the very beginning. alot of questions would be going through my mind during the experiment. like, why would a doctor want to know if you learn faster with pain? why allow someone with a heart problem to get shocked? and why would such a person participate? i'm pretty sure if all those who participated in the experiment were to read this, they'd all say "i wouldn't participate" but you really don't know for sure.

[Brake4Wind]

Lol Tropical- fry that dumb ass. I suspect one guy really would have!
I would have been suspicious of the doctor's hypothesis too (a sadist?) but the actor getting shocked initially said his heart ailment was quite mild; just to plant the thought without raising suspicions. It wasn't until the voltage was ramped up that he started to squeal and talk more of his heart. And, you are absolutely right!

i'm pretty sure if all those who participated in the experiment were to read this, they'd all say "i wouldn't participate" but you really don't know for sure.

We don't really know until we are put to the test! I did have a lot of respect for the one who finished the test and, upon discovering the truth, really learned something and took responsibility for his choices- he was the only one out of all the others who actually participated.

[misha666]

Mish, you'd go after fam too?

Yes i would, If i was to kill my mom and step dad when i was like 7 or 8 and any where i would end up would be better way waaaaaay better than with them.
I know it sounds bad but im all menatly and emotionaly fooked up because of them. Sometimes i even dream that i kill them or that im about to.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Well, sort of Krsty but it runs deeper; in cognitive dissonance, we aren't so much fooled by another, we are really fooling ourselves. There is an inconsistency between the moral principles we say we will uphold and what we actually do when tested. The one woman who refused to participate said that even one shock is going too far and from there, where does it stop? She couldn't/ wouldn't be pressured from the start and said, "I don't care if you pay me or not".

The attorney was considering his legal options- himself- if he can be sued (quite possibly if the man had a heart attack); from the start, they made it very clear that anyone can stop at any time (and still be paid). All others folded under peer pressure (very easily); the doctor saying, "it just hurts... he won't die". Just hurts? The man was wailing. Only one man admitted that he could and should have stopped- that was HIS fault and he felt remorse. Most were like children- 'HE made me do it'. One was belligerent in justifying his actions, "Hey, I was willing to be shocked too- that was the deal".

You are right about how easily we cave in to a perceived authority, especially police. That ploy was used often by serial killers to lure their victims. It's unknown how many during Hitler's regime followed out of fear or willingly. (Hence the 1950's experiment to test an average American- 70% is very high). What we do know is at the fall of the Third Reich, suddenly no Nazi patriots could be found. Average citizens denied all knowledge of large death camps at the outskirts of their towns. (The smell from crematoriums! And no local guards? Hmm) Many today deny that the Holocaust ever happened; despite the films, photos, crematoriums, mass graves, liberators' eye-witness testimony... it's total denial. "We couldn't/ wouldn't/ didn't do THAT".

I was looking at it from the point of once we allow ourselves to push the proverbial button once, it becomes easier to push it again and justify subsequent participation by saying," oh, it's just a little stronger jolt, they said it won't kill the guy". There is tons of decisions between No I Won't Do That Because it's Wrong, and I Already Did it Once, What's Once More? It is about self perception and justification.

This idea is very clear in the story of Watergate. All the President's Men...It's how normally moral people justify a large wrong once they have committed a smaller wrong and had no repercussions. But once found out, I believe only Jeb Magruber( Not sure I have the name right...just trying to remember) readily admitted his wrong and described how he went down the slippery slope of a law abiding man to a scandalous criminal.

Interesting topic B4W. I see the Nazi story as well. Sometimes good Christians can be turned to hate such as is being done with all the anti Muslim rhetoric since 9/11. It happened during the Crusades as well. Murder and hate in the name of Religion. Supposedly good people turned to doing something morally wrong to satisfy the need for self justification. Makes you wonder how moral any of us really are

[tropicalheatwave]

Lol Tropical- fry that dumb ass. I suspect one guy really would have!
I would have been suspicious of the doctor's hypothesis too (a sadist?) but the actor getting shocked initially said his heart ailment was quite mild; just to plant the thought without raising suspicions. It wasn't until the voltage was ramped up that he started to squeal and talk more of his heart. And, you are absolutely right!

i'm pretty sure if all those who participated in the experiment were to read this, they'd all say "i wouldn't participate" but you really don't know for sure.

We don't really know until we are put to the test! I did have a lot of respect for the one who finished the test and, upon discovering the truth, really learned something and took responsibility for his choices- he was the only one out of all the others who actually participated.

i think we are conditioned to be followers since birth. its deeply ingrained in us. which has its goods and bads. i sometimes wonder how i would be if i were to grow up in the middle east and have my parents teach me to hate americans since birth. and to be taught that in school as well. just like that experiment states:

A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions.

maybe we are not much different then our enemies afterall.

[JeremyM]

To the people wanting to kill Hitler, would you be able to kill Hitler when he was a young child, suffocate him in his crib as a baby?

Or would you only kill him as a man?

killing hitler wouldn't be right, in my opinion. he was a product of his environment. i think, rather than being killed, he should be kidnapped as a child and relocated to a place where he could grow up with a loving family and pursue his interests. then, maybe, we would associate him with art. he wanted to be an artist, after all. it's really tragic.

I am sure anther person would have come along and tried what Hitler tried, maybe not to that great of a degree but he did have lots of supporters of his madness.

Reading further on in Jeff's recent posts about it would be possible to just kill his mother while pregnant with him, but who would morally ever be able to try that?

I might also like to kill Mark David Chapman before he gun downed John Lennon too.

[JeremyM]

Here's a little twist on Jeff's question- How evil are YOU?

This comes from an experiment duplicated from a psychiatrist's test from the 1950's (The Discovery Channel, I think).
The last experiment had a much smaller sample of a dozen or so (the first was large- 1,000 or more).

In the experiment there were 2 main actors- one a doctor, older, distinguished, very officious. His experiment was to test if people learned faster by causing pain for a wrong answer- all wrong answers meant getting an electrical shock and, it increased in intensity. The second actor was the person receiving the electric shock but, the study group didn't know this, nor did they know what was involved before volunteering but, also told that they could stop at any time.

A 'random' selection was made to choose which person (actor or study participant) would receive or administer the shock. It was rigged so the actor always received the shock and the actor always noted concern about a mild heart ailment (he actually had no shock but acted as if he did and could only be heard, not seen).

Only one woman in the study group refused to participate, considered it immoral and could not be persuaded. As the study progressed, the actor kept getting the wrong answers and the level of shock was increased- at first mild (hmm) then (OUCH!) then (that really hurt!) until the actor shrieked and began to refer to his heart ailment, expressing fear. People turned to the doctor who insisted they must continue- it only hurts but won't kill him. At that point, only one other refused to continue; all others shocked him until the doctor told them to stop (the actor screaming). At the end of the experiment the study group was told the truth. The guy that stopped said he was an attorney and knew he couldn't be forced to continue. When asked who was at fault, the doctor who encouraged them or the individual who continued, only one took personal responsibility- all others blamed the doctor- just following HIS instructions.

In the original ('50's) experiment- the psychiatrist concluded that the Nazis would have no problem finding people to operate their death camps in any average American city. A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions. In the '50's experiment it was over 70%- when the memory of the Holocaust was fresh. "Never again"? Is anyone so sure?

I think people are okay watching others in pain as long as they do not have to feel the same pain.

And it is a group mentality too, you look around and others seem okay with it and you don't want to appear to be the weak link so most people stfu on alot of stuff.

I wouldn't stand there and watch it, especially if the dude was crying out in pain, I would even ask to have the doctor jolt me once to see how bad that shock really was, after he claimed it was not as bad as the other being zapped claimed.

It is everyone's fault imo. Even the one being zapped because if not being restrained they could stop it too, the doctor's fault and the watchers also.

[*~*Isis*~*]

To the people wanting to kill Hitler, would you be able to kill Hitler when he was a young child, suffocate him in his crib as a baby?

Or would you only kill him as a man?

killing hitler wouldn't be right, in my opinion. he was a product of his environment. i think, rather than being killed, he should be kidnapped as a child and relocated to a place where he could grow up with a loving family and pursue his interests. then, maybe, we would associate him with art. he wanted to be an artist, after all. it's really tragic.

I am sure anther person would have come along and tried what Hitler tried, maybe not to that great of a degree but he did have lots of supporters of his madness.

Reading further on in Jeff's recent posts about it would be possible to just kill his mother while pregnant with him, but who would morally ever be able to try that?

I might also like to kill Mark David Chapman before he gun downed John Lennon too.

I disagree with the environment thing. I believe that some people are just born evil--what Sylvia Browne calls "dark entities"--and are here for no other reason than to bring darkness to others' lives. I believe that Hitler was one of those people. Cult leaders like Jim Jones would also fall in this category. I can see how this idea is controversial, because we want to think of children as innocent. But I'd be worried about some kid killing neighborhood cats (which Jim Jones did).

@Jeremy--I don't know that I would kill Mark David Chapman. He was just a deeply disturbed man who needed help and didn't get it. I'd probably just go back to before he had the urge to kill, and try to get him some help so he wouldn't get to that point in the first place.

[JeremyM]

I agree with you that Hitler was a dark entity, a truly soulless creature. He obviously got off on seeing others killed and tortured.

I think I would still off MDC. Sure he was messed in the head but he had a method to his madness, he picked his target and carried it out, if truly off his head he would have also shot Yoko, she was right there too, or even himself. He didn't have a death wish for himself.


He had an obsession for Lennon, look at all those other celebrity stalkers, some were as successful as Chapman. Makes you wonder wtf is wrong with our society that people need to make good on their crazy thoughts. He could have sought help too, but he thought killing Lennon was a better choice.

[*~*Isis*~*]

My next contributing question (not one of my "random" ones):

What do you all think about alienation-of-affections lawsuits?...

I, personally, think they're stupid, and borne out of bloodthirst and greed. They're just an excuse for the wife (or husband) to be unnecessarily vindictive. Plus the wrong person gets blamed. Although there haven't been many of these in the news, it seems to me like they've become some kind of fad--since Cynthia Shackleford won a ridiculous amount of money she knew damn well she'd never see, AOA lawsuits have become like some kind of fashion statement. (See why I said earlier in this thread, "don't get me started"? )

Most people I share my opinion with disagree--"you're not married so you don't know what you'd do" (which I hate!). They think it's fair. Of course, I live in a Bible-belt state, so it doesn't surprise me--Kentuckians are all about their "family values." I value my family, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have an unnecessary legal mud-slinging match with another woman over a man--especially not if I live to see a 32nd year of marriage...by then it's just childish.

[Brake4Wind]

I was looking at it from the point of once we allow ourselves to push the proverbial button once, it becomes easier to push it again and justify subsequent participation by saying," oh, it's just a little stronger jolt, they said it won't kill the guy". There is tons of decisions between No I Won't Do That Because it's Wrong, and I Already Did it Once, What's Once More? It is about self perception and justification.

Nicely stated Krsty. Except for the one woman, this is EXACTLY what they did- looking to the doctor for reassurance.

i think we are conditioned to be followers since birth. its deeply ingrained in us. which has its goods and bads. i sometimes wonder how i would be if i were to grow up in the middle east and have my parents teach me to hate americans since birth. and to be taught that in school as well.

Conditioning is another strong element. We ask the (so called) "experts" what is right. First our parents, then the doctor, judge, clergy, policeman... We often fail to ask ourselves but don't we really feel it in our gut? (If we pause to listen to that inner guide).

And it is a group mentality too, you look around and others seem okay with it and you don't want to appear to be the weak link so most people stfu on alot of stuff.

Yep- we don't want to be the odd man out and, it can get rough if we are! We can easily become the next target if we disagree.

I see the Nazi story as well. Sometimes good Christians can be turned to hate such as is being done with all the anti Muslim rhetoric since 9/11. It happened during the Crusades as well. Murder and hate in the name of Religion. Supposedly good people turned to doing something morally wrong to satisfy the need for self justification.

just like that experiment states:
Brake4Wind wrote:A majority will follow a perceived authority, even willingly and will not take personal responsibility for their actions.

I think people are okay watching others in pain as long as they do not have to feel the same pain.

We are taught to follow a majority rule and we need standards/ laws (equally applied) to govern but, when is the majority wrong? What if the majority becomes bigoted, greedy, intolerant...? Or when our laws are not just/ equally applied to all? Slavery, ethnic cleansing and cruel prejudice are parts of our own history yet absolutely contrary to our stated principles, "all men are created equal". Ya think our founding fathers had a little 'cognitive dissonance' of their own when they wrote these lofty principles yet condoned, institutionalized and even participated in slavery?

Makes you wonder how moral any of us really are

It is everyone's fault imo.

maybe we are not much different then our enemies afterall.

Yep, yep and yep- The real doctor behind the mask threw our own hypocrisies back in our faces!

[Brake4Wind]

I value my family, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have an unnecessary legal mud-slinging match with another woman over a man--especially not if I live to see a 32nd year of marriage...by then it's just childish.

Lol Isis- I'm imagining those outlandish and embarrassing Jerry Springer shows! Is this similar to what you refer to?

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Hmm, alienation of affection? If I was feeling alienated, I would just stay with the jerk for a while and give em a dose of their own medicine AND make their life a living hell. Especially if there was a lot of money involved.

Seriously, I think that using the alienation of affection accusation is fair considering the vow's that most people make on their wedding day. That companionship and affection is the basis for modern marriages. JMO.

[*~*Isis*~*]

But come on--is $9 million really going to heal any emotional pain?...

Plus, what if the other woman can't afford to pay you? What if she didn't know about the marriage? What if it was just one time? Worse, what if there was no affair, and the husband raped her then lied about it? Is that fair?! And why does the other woman always get blamed, anyway? The husband made his own conscious decision to cheat, so he's the one who should be punished.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

@ Isis,
I think you ask good questions, but most of those things would be found out by detectives before a suit would actually be filed. The defendant could, if proven innocent of the knowledge of the marriage, possibly file a defamation or malicious prosecution suit, so I don't think that a suit like this is taken lightly by any attorney.

Yes i would, If i was to kill my mom and step dad when i was like 7 or 8 and any where i would end up would be better way waaaaaay better than with them.
I know it sounds bad but im all menatly and emotionaly fooked up because of them. Sometimes i even dream that i kill them or that im about to.

Wow Misha,
I don't know what happened to you, but it must have been pretty bad to have thought about killing them. I hope you are way away from them for the sake of you and the kids. I can't even imagine!

[Nostalgic]

My next contributing question (not one of my "random" ones):

What do you all think about alienation-of-affections lawsuits?...

I, personally, think they're stupid, and borne out of bloodthirst and greed. They're just an excuse for the wife (or husband) to be unnecessarily vindictive. Plus the wrong person gets blamed. Although there haven't been many of these in the news, it seems to me like they've become some kind of fad--since Cynthia Shackleford won a ridiculous amount of money she knew damn well she'd never see, AOA lawsuits have become like some kind of fashion statement. (See why I said earlier in this thread, "don't get me started"? )

Most people I share my opinion with disagree--"you're not married so you don't know what you'd do" (which I hate!). They think it's fair. Of course, I live in a Bible-belt state, so it doesn't surprise me--Kentuckians are all about their "family values." I value my family, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have an unnecessary legal mud-slinging match with another woman over a man--especially not if I live to see a 32nd year of marriage...by then it's just childish.

Never heard of this before?
Just googled it,
Umm....
I'm so suprised laws like this exsist.
Life happens and changes and..... I'm still stumped as to why this law exsists.

[Soulkiss333]

I dont agree with the lawsuits but the other woman isnt innocent so I dont feel sorry for her either. The person who is cheating that is marry should be punish as well. I have ppl tell me because he is the one marry than he is more wrong than the other woman, but wrong is wrong and they are both wrong and even if someone is "more wrong" doesnt mean the other is automatically innocent. It almost sounds like a scam, I mean what if the marry couple were in on it together to get money from the other woman.
Personal I think they should just get rid of marriage altogether, it causes too many problems and ties up so much time in courts and takes away from real issues instead it has to deal ppl's who cant work out things with their so-call soul-mate. Marriage has become a really bad joke for the most part.
This is the first I heard about a lawsuit like this and I get sick of ppl always expecting to get paid or rewarded when something bad happens to them, it just makes me sick.

[Guardian7347]

But come on--is $9 million really going to heal any emotional pain?...

Plus, what if the other woman can't afford to pay you? What if she didn't know about the marriage? What if it was just one time? Worse, what if there was no affair, and the husband raped her then lied about it? Is that fair?! And why does the other woman always get blamed, anyway? The husband made his own conscious decision to cheat, so he's the one who should be punished.

I agree with you. At what point in our history did we decide that not only does a change of heart demand some form of punishment, but that financial punishment was the end all answer to every problem? Ok, infidelity is bad. Gotcha. At that point you have a choice. You either feel you can continue to live with this person, or you can't. I see no justification for suing the other person. They weren't in contract with you. Your spouse was. They promised to be faithful to you. The other person had no legal obligations whatsoever. Moreover, I agree with the simple argument that no financial payoff ever heals emotional pain. That's obscene.

[SamZee]

^^^

[Nostalgic]

Nicely said guardian.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

I THINK THAT IS DEAD WRONG! IF AN UNMARRIED PERSON CAUSES A MARRIED COUPLE TO DIVORCE, SHE OR HE SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR IT AND IF THAT MEANS PUTTING A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON IT, WELL THEN SO BE IT. I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WOMAN MENTIONED ABOVE DIDN'T KNOW THE MAN WAS MARRIED. TO ME IT'S THE SAME AS MY NEIGHBOR BURNING DOWN MY HOME THAT I HAVE WORKED FOR AND ADDED TO AND STRUGGLED TO KEEP. WOULD YOU TELL A NEIGHBOR THAT BURNED YOUR HOUSE DOWN BY ACCIDENT " OH, THAT'S OK. YOU DON'T OWE ME ANYTHING". BULLSHIT! HO'S NEED TO BE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING THE MARITAL CONTRACT AS MUCH AS A CARELESS PERSON THAT BURNS YOUR HOME TO THE GROUND.

[Soulkiss333]

Are you serious or are you playing devil advocate (I play advocate a lot) I wont assume.

What about the marry man who said ok to cheating , I am sure the woman didnt put a gun to his head...see it isnt the same thing as your neighbor burning down your house....the house didnt have a decision but the marry person who is cheating does?

I mean if he really care about the hard work they put into the marriage and love his wife than he wouldnt have cheated.
So, I dont understand you why you think it is all her fault and how money solves everything, it is the marriage couple responsible to keep their marriage together and no one elses(just like you are responsible for your own happiness). The marriage couple is liable for their togetherness and stability etc. That "Ho" as you call her didnt have a martial contact to break only the marry couple did and they vow and sign it.
Until you can explain why it isnt his fault and show me she made him do it.....I have to say that is one of the most ridiculous things I heard of. But we are all entitle to own opinions. Maybe when there is more and more ppl like you, ppl will see I am right, marriage is just a bad joke, take it out of the legal system and let all the ppl learn to deal with their own personal problems instead of bringing everyone else into it.

But like I said I feel sorry for no one is this situation, I would for the lady who got cheated on but not when I found out she wants money that is just sad and very poor character, she should do the right thing and divorce his ass and move on and learn from these mistakes.

One of my fears about the world is that everyone wants to get paid when they are wronged...you know I have done the most learning from my mistakes or others, I learn to be strong, wise, cautious, compassionate etc. What is going to happen when we dont learn anymore but instead just get paid? When ppl preferred to be the victim? A world of ppl who only self-pities themselves. Joy I cant wait, but I think for the most part it is already here. I cant believe how many ppl love to be the victim....me never!!!

I still think it is a scam.

Oh I will look at the books you suggested to me about the Navajo, thanks.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Until you can explain why it isnt his fault and show me she made him do it

Sticking to the topic which is only about Alienation of affection....(not speaking of the adulterating husbands part of it) I will give you examples. A marriage is a contract above all others. Weather biblical or moral, therefore, a woman who chooses to have an affair with a married man should be accountable to the wife for the loss of stability and love of her rightful partner.

Let me ask you...should the girlfriend have no consequences?

Second, in regard to my house example, it is very much a similar idea. The homeowner(wife was the only innocent party) the house I was equating to the marriage ie..you give everything you can to a marriage or paying your mortgage and keeping your home (marriage) whole. That is why I used that example.

I'm not saying that the man should have no accountability to the situation, but we are speaking of the other woman in this instance.

You asked does money make it right? Well that depends doesn't it. If the married woman was used and accustomed to a certain lifestyle and certain amount of status etc. how would she recoup her losses and the emotional damage that the other woman caused? Would a I'm sorry cut it either?

What I want to ask you is how do you justify the woman that had an affair with a married man and caused harm to an innocent woman should not be accountable under the law. We are talking about the law of wrongs here aren't we?

@ guardian..suppose the married couple did have issues that were not resolved, why didn't the man do the right thing and file for divorce before he had an affair? He has a choice. Most people know that the right thing to do is divorce and settle the terms before jumping into another relationship. I think defending a man like that is sad. I mean these things happen all the time, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. If the cheaters in this scenario didn't think of potential consequences before they had fun fucks, they deserve to be called out for it.

JMO

[*~*Isis*~*]

I'm with Guardian.

I still say AOA lawsuits are bloodthirsty, greedy and unnecessary. The other woman never sits at home and plots and plans to break up a marriage. The only ones who can really break up a marriage are the two who are married. If there's an affair, then the home was already wrecked before the other woman (or other man) got there. The idea that "the marriage was fine until she came along" is bullshit.

The only thing that name-calling, destroying the mistress's reputation, and suing her for money she doesn't have, can ever give the wife is bad character.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Isis,
Obviously that's not true! If it were, then these types of suits wouldn't even be here in the first place. I'm nearly appalled that anyone would side with the motherfucking cheating husband and his bimbo. But I guess that's because you are not married and have no clue what kind of commitment a marriage takes. There is no other relationship above that of a married couple. The only thing that comes close is the obligation a parent has to a minor child. So when you fall in love with the man or woman of your dreams and make a commitment to that person for better or worse, in sickness or in health till death do you part or what ever variation of those vow's you take, come and tell me that it's o.k. if someone, anyone comes between you before a divorce is in the works and or final.

When did we decide as a Country that extra marital affairs are O.K.? I'm not liberal or conservative, I tend to think for myself. I may or may not choose to sue a woman who ruined my marriage, but you better damn sure know that depending on the pain and loss that it could cause me, I would weigh my options and nothing you or guardian or soulkiss or anyone else has a right to say what is right for me if I have been wronged. It's not bloodlust because that would be murder. It's called you take from me and do damage to me, you will pay one way or another.

[*~*Isis*~*]

You're right--I'm not married. I don't know what a marriage is like. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

We're not defending the cheater and the mistress (why the labels if we're discussing hypothetical scenarios?). Their actions reflect a lapse in integrity, and are inexcusable. The point we're making is that the mistress is not 100% accountable--the idea that AOA lawsuits convey and that, unfortunately, our patriarchal society teaches, is that she is. That's another beef I have with these lawsuits. They reinforce the idea that cheating is in a man's nature and the other woman "seduces" him away.

Pardon me for asking--has this happened to you? To someone close? If it has, I apologize, as this has obviously struck a nerve or two. The last thing I want to cause is bad blood between members of the DM community...though it has sparked quite the debate...

[Nostalgic]

Alienation of affections law suit = revenge made legal.

No matter how much it's explained. I just don't get it

[Soulkiss333]

No one has said it is Ok to have an affair. You are only hearing the parts you want if you think that. I said every time I dont feel sorry for this other woman. I am saying Life happens. I think the law is very dated and probably why all states have removed this law except for 7 states. It started when men did all the ruling and women were second class citizens.
I can say/believe whatever I want, but yeah you dont have to agree, but I still do have the right to think/believe whatever I want about your actions and everyone elses and so do you.

and again I will say this....
The way I looked at it is that I dont believe in marriage so I have no contracts (legal) with anyone. Just because you have a contract with someone doesnt mean I should be force to uphold your contracts. (of course I have more class than to date a man that is marry). How can you rightfully (not vindictively) think that you have the right hold someone accountable to your contracts? It is your contact to be faithful to each other not anyone elses. And for the burning house thing.....you have insurance for that but yeah if the insurance company finds out one of the homeowners help burn it down on purpose then the contract is voided and you dont get paid not even the innocent spouse who had no idea.

There is no relationship higher than any other, love is love (you can try to label it if you like), marriage is just legal stuff, it doesnt mean you love someone more. I cant believe how many ppl are program to think if they are marry that means you love each other more. I have an great aunt who doesnt believe in marriage her and her partner been together from almost 40 years and they love each other as much as anyone in love can.

As for the customs to a lifestyle...please that is the biggest BS, I hear from ppl. Real responsible people cover their ends, (we all make our choices) if you already had money than you should have went to school to learn a trait so when the fairy-tale ends you could support yourself. You dont wait until it falls and go oh shit it's raining and I didnt do anything to assure a safe future for myself. Only ppl who are irresponsible think someone should take care of their needs (but we (ourselves) need to learn to take care of ourselves and stop being dependent upon others.

I dont mean to upset you and I have said all I am going to about this. I guess this is just one area we dont agree, I hope you dont hold it against me.

[*~*Isis*~*]

@Nostalgic--exactly my point. I don't get it either.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

No Isis,
This has not happend to me, however I am very much on the other side of the fence as you. I think defending the guilty parties actions and bashing the wife is a poor choice. I have been married for over 20 years and have been through hell and high water with and for my husband. I think infidelity is the only thing that really cannot be repaired. All mariages have their problems and all persons have faults but to me the biggest breaches of character is lying and cheating. Those two things will always be worse in my mind that someone who seeks monetary damages for being hurt in this way. I think liers and cheaters like this is pretty low on the my kind of people scale.
As far as someone having a change of heart, thats fine, but for God sake, get a divorce first and don,t put someone you once loved through the humiliation of being cheated on. That is sooo wrong. Thats how I feel. I don't think the wife should have to slink off and lick her wounds and jst shut up and learn a lesson from the whole thing either. I just cannot fathom how any one of you can so blase condone the actions of the cheater and the liar, and turn on the wifes actions. I would feel the same if it were a wife that cheated.
Maybe 9 mil seems like a lot to us but some people that number may not be a lot. It may be a figure that a forensic accountant came up with as potential loss from the estate. There are so many things that none of you have taken into account here.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Alienation of affections law suit = revenge made legal.

So is suing a Dr. for removing the wrong kidney also equal revenge made legal Nos?

Or how about this one...a wealthy man commits suicide by driving his car onto train tracks and an innocent bystander gets killed from the wreckage..does the family of the innocent bystander have a right to sue the estate of the wealthy man that committed suicide? You bet they do!

These are tort laws...the law of wrongs and how they are remedied. These are not revenge laws, even though you may feel that way, torts have been around for centuries.

Does a huge tree that is planted in your neighbors yard but overhangs your property the responsibility of your neighbor and should a large limb fall and damage your property should your neighbor pay for the repairs?

If your dog bites the kid down the street while loose from your yard, you are responsible to pay the damages. When does our own lack of responsibility and ethics become the headache and burden of someone else without any form of recompense?

@ soulkiss,
No this won't come between any of us, but I think it's needed dialog on certain subjects. Also Marriage is the highest civil contract. Whether you believe in marriage or not. Marriage is the only circumstance that law allows a party to be complete free of having to testify in a court of law against another person. Your spouse! Because your spouse is considered an extension of yourself. No other relationship or contract allows for someone to refuse to testify in a court of law but that of husband and wife.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

I thought this might help anyone reading this discussion to understand the meaning of the AOA lawsuit and the test for a successful claim and how tort laws are commonly used.

*A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others. The person who sustains injury or suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the defendant or tortfeasor.

*Three elements must be established in every tort action. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach.

*The law of torts serves four objectives. First, it seeks to compensate victims for injuries suffered by the culpable action or inaction of others. Second, it seeks to shift the cost of such injuries to the person or persons who are legally responsible for inflicting them. Third, it seeks to discourage injurious, careless, and risky behavior in the future. Fourth, it seeks to vindicate legal rights and interests that have been compromised, diminished, or emasculated. In theory these objectives are served when tort liability is imposed on tortfeasors for intentional wrongdoing, Negligence, and ultrahazardous activities.

So how is any of this obscene?

[tsetse22]

Yes, I see both the points legal and moral, Krys, but isn't this what alimony is all about? If he really acted in such a
harmful or bullshit way she gets more of the communal property and his future earnings, right?

I do not now the facts in the case being discussed, but unless he has damaged her ability to earn for herself or move forward as a whole person (singular) or transmitted to her some disease or otherwise impaired her (psychologically does not count), then
I'm afraid she's party to the marriage's failure (if not only by selecting this POS for a spouse) and should'nt have a legal tort case beyond divorce court.

Although, admittedly, I dunno if a woman's view would be the same.

[Nostalgic]

I don't think you can compare love and feelings to malpractice.

I've never actually read a marriage contract but still don't think agree with this.

Life happens. For example, I have lots of faith in my marriage but I don't live in la la land either. When we had our son I had to make sure that I was comfortable with the idea that if for some unseen reason we split that I wouldn't be able to up and leave back to NZ.

Yes the husband and other woman are mean and nasty but suing her is just revenge on hurt feelings. I would have more pride than to do that.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

tsetse,

There are no clear details in this case. It is a question of is it legal and fair for a married woman to sue another woman for causing a disruption or divorce between a married couple. It could also apply to a husband who has a cheating wife and could he sue another man for causing harm to his marriage to his wife. Again this is tort law tort coming from the greek twist or wrong. So to put it in a simple way, this is one of many laws that is concerned with righting a wrong done against an individual where there is no criminal remedy only a civil remedy.

The case would never have gone to trial if the following things were not present in the first place...

*Three elements must be established in every tort action. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach.

So Isis's claim that maybe the other woman didn't know the man was married. That argument doesn't hold water because it is one of the 3 conditions that must be met in order for the case to proceed to trial.

The second argument of "is 9 million dollars too much" is not clearly defined by the information given. Since a tort does not consist of damages for pain and suffering, it has to be assumed that 9 million dollars would be figured as a loss to the wife in more concrete measures that pain and suffering, such as loss of a business or asset's etc.

The third problem is that no one here seems to understand the idea that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and yet a outside force can have a devastating impact on that relationship. Just as in a business contract, parties other than those in the contract can be subject to damages if they cause damage to the deal.

Everyone know's that it is wrong to dabble in relations with a married person, and the few States that still entertain this law use it as a tort or a wrong committed upon another person as follows..

*The law of torts serves four objectives. First, it seeks to compensate victims for injuries suffered by the culpable action or inaction of others. Second, it seeks to shift the cost of such injuries to the person or persons who are legally responsible for inflicting them. Third, it seeks to discourage injurious, careless, and risky behavior in the future. Fourth, it seeks to vindicate legal rights and interests that have been compromised, diminished, or emasculated. In theory these objectives are served when tort liability is imposed on tortfeasors for intentional wrongdoing, Negligence, and ultrahazardous activities.

So Nos, even though I gave the example of a Dr. removing the wrong kidney, the word wrong is what I was pointing out because tort is synonymous with wrong. All the examples that I gave about the house fire, the dog bite, the tree limb are all examples of tort laws or the law of wrongs.

So again, with all this information and explanation, I ask you all again, how is the other woman not responsible for her affair with a married man?

The husband will more than likely pay his fair share should the wife sue him for a disillusion of marriage and spousal support or a final disposition of the marital assets. So we are not considering him in this argument as far as the blame or responsibility goes.

How would another woman ever right the wrong of taking a husband out of his obligation to his wife and marriage? Is "I'm sorry" good enough? Again, exclude the husband and his part in the scenario for now and focus on the wrong that the other woman committed knowingly upon the married woman.

[tsetse22]

7 states already have home wrecker laws , btw.
"Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah."

[Nostalgic]

I'm not saying its not wrong. For sure it's wrong. I just think having laws on it is a bit extreme especially as situations like that vary a lot from case to case.

You could argue so many silly points. If prenups were signed you could argue they both went into it assuming the marriage would fail....
I just don't see a court case making any sence.

Yes it's wrong but it's life.

I can't compare this to a doctor and malpractice as those cases vary a lot as well. As for the person comitting scucide and an a bystander getting hurt, it's a joke for me that someone would sue.

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

this has obviously struck a nerve or two. The last thing I want to cause is bad blood between members of the DM community...though it has sparked quite the debate...

Lol Isis, no bad blood as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not saying its not wrong. For sure it's wrong. I just think having laws on it is a bit extreme especially as situations like that vary a lot from case to case.

Well at least we can agree that it's wrong.

You could argue so many silly points.

I don't know about you, but having my ass called into court for being a home wrecker and looking at 9 million dollars in restitution isn't silly, it's scary! Maybe more people knew that there were consequences like these, they would think before having that fling.

As for the person committing suicide and an a bystander getting hurt, it's a joke for me that someone would sue

Why is this a joke to you? We aren't talking about an extra marital fling Nos. The subject is an innocent person being taken from his or her family forever! Seriously, you can't think of a single valid reason for the family of the innocent victim to sue? Come on Nos, your a mom, think about your childs future and all the hardships that he and your hubby would face if that innocent person were you and they were left behind to pick up the pieces, plan a funeral, pay for therapists if needed to deal with the loss. Loss of the income you would have brought to the family, your plans of sending your child to college etc. What if you were the sole bread earner and you and your hubby had 3 more mouths to feed and he was suddenly left to deal with everything on his own? This happens more than you know. Is a case like this any different to you than a drunk driver that kills or permanently damages an innocent pedestrian?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I enjoy this kind of argument. I think it says a lot about different peoples perspectives. I am serious about the mistress needing to be accountable though. Maybe not 9 mil., but she should have to face the damage she had done in some way.

[Nostalgic]

I would be more concerned for the sadness of the family that their kin commuted scucide than worrying about taking time of work because I got hurt when the train suddenly stopped. Their family has enough to worry about than some bystander suing them on top if it.

Drunk driving is different. You drink and drive your a bloody idiot as you hop in the car asking for trouble. Scucide is not the same. Your mentally unstable.

Isis, no bad blood just decent debating

[KRSTYSTLCLR]

Well Nos, all I can say is you are a lot more understanding than I am. If someone killed my loved one while they were committing suicide, I'd be concerned for my loved one not those other people. My compassion for a stranger does not exceed my compassion for my family in a case like that.