While i believe in the underlying vision that drove Swartz to his actions, the person that killed Swartz was Swartz himself.
Prosecutors overcharge and bend the law all the time, still we don't see mass suicides from the "victims". Swartz obviously had some other unrelated issues that drove him to this extreme.
Its clear by reading his older articles about his reddit past and such that he had some trouble adjusting to a "normal" live. He did not seem like an emotionally stable person to me, even before his suicide.
So are you making a value judgement or an empirical judgement?
How many people would have to commit suicide (per capita) for it to be considered "normal"? Does the same measure apply to other "fringe" choices in life, Alcohol, drugs, sexuality, etc?
If it isn't based on numbers, then you are just making a value judgement... And if one doesn't share your values, they can simply disagree with you.
50.1% of all living things for it to be biologically normal.
50.1% of human beings for it to be emotionally normal.
But; let's also add your comment is nonsense. I don't need empirical data to state suicide is not normal.
I am a human being, that is alive and capable of reason.
The HN propensity for immediately crying foul at lack of empirical evidence is almost child like.
Are you that incapable of applying reasoned judgement to your daily life?
On another tangent; Why do you think sexuality is a choice? That statement alone shows you are not equipped to discuss the issue with any thing resembling common sense or informed opinion.
You are just tossing out a bunch of arbitrary control questions that mean nothing.
Sexuality is a choice, but isn't always, I can choose different forms of it, are you denying that choice? Are you saying because some people can't choose others are not allowed to?
By your definition of "Normal" Black people aren't normal... Nor are white people... erm.. Nor are Indian... or asian... Or christians, or especially not athiests... As there aren't 50.1% of any of them (Compared with the entire species/race). You've reduced "Normal" to "Human"
Or perhaps we could admit, that "Normal" is itself a value judgement, and based on social stigma and culture?
> I am a human being, that is alive and capable of reason.
No, you are clearly a Judeo-christian pushing his "beliefs" on other people pretending it is reason. Suicide is accepted in some cultures (modern and historic). But clearly not yours. And admittedly not Aaron's either, but calling him abnormal for being distressed (and ultimately committing suicide) for being persecuted for something he thought was harmless/for the good, is a strange viewpoint in my mind (just as mine seems strange to you I suspect).
> That statement alone shows you are not equipped to discuss the issue with any thing resembling common sense or informed opinion.
Well clearly, given I'm arguing that your nebulous concept of 'normal' and 'common sense' are in fact flawed by your own definition.
But hey, it is much easier to dismiss an alternative point of view, than to internalise and understand it.
BTW: You don't have to be such a dick in your responses, just because what someone (myself in this instance) says something you don't agree with, doesn't mean you should attack and belittle them. While I am reaching for some intellectual high ground in this comment, your words were still hurtful.
You have misunderstood me. My point was sexuality is never a choice. Acting on impulse is a choice; suffering from impulse is not.
I suggest you go back and re-read what I have written before you embarrass yourself further.
I never brought race into the equation. In order for suicide to be considered the norm it would have be the de facto standard for living organisms. Roughly, 50.1% of all living creatures. I can cite 7 examples that back up my claim -
Movement Respiration Sensitivity Growth Reproduction Excretion Nutrition
Common sense also tells us that suicide cannot be normal behaviour otherwise all biological organisms would eventually degrade to 0 lifeforms.
If my words are hurtful it is because time and time again we see posters on HN tossing out absolutely junk statements that they think are well-informed. When pressed they resort to an argumentative form of
Present [ALL] evidence [EVER] or I reject reasoned opinions.
Normally the follow us is something along the lines of
*Your [SOURCE/RESEARCH/DATA] is flawed because of [UTTERLY INTANGIBLE REASON].
There comes a time when, as a person and a member of society you have to accept that we are not living in a simulation but that the evidence in front of you is actually satisfactory.
Suicide is not normal. It was ludicrous and silly for you to toss out a random objection to my statement.
Perhaps accepting the normalized injustice and oppression within the society in which you were socialized is a precondition for emotional stability. Maybe that is why so few of us are willing to question it. Just a thought.
But what outcome are you aiming for with your comment?
The prosecutor does share some responsibility, as does Aaron, as does MIT, as does JSTOR, as does the general judicial system and environment that allowed this to happen.
Doing a drive by 'He only has himself to blame' style comment, is ignorant at best, and out right trolling at worst.
Prosecutors overcharge and bend the law all the time, still we don't see mass suicides from the "victims". Swartz obviously had some other unrelated issues that drove him to this extreme.