返回列表 回覆 發帖

[腦殘白痴] 抑鬱雙姝啪藥自割80刀

2008-01-19

【東方日報專訊】兩名風華正茂少女(十六及廿四歲),分別因情緒問題及抑鬱症入院治療,因而相識,出院後仍保持聯絡,近日其中一人感到生無可戀,相約自殺,廿四歲少女本周三先在家鎅手八十刀,至前日早上,在網誌寫下遺書,跟着與另一名少女入住西環一間酒店,先以仰藥及鎅刀雙料自殺,但昨晨醒來發現未死,再服安眠藥尋死,昏睡房間,幸被職員揭發,兩人送院時清醒,情況穩定。

兩名少女分別姓莫(十六歲)及姓葉(廿四歲),莫居住大埔,家境中上,父親是港島一間室內設計公司的東主,她在大埔一間中學唸書,但有情緒問題;葉則居住上水,任職會計,在火炭區上班,工作表現良好,受公司重用,她亦是基督徒,屬大圍一間教會,惟患有抑鬱症,更天生有少許斜視。

昏迷酒店 職員報警

兩個月前,兩人進入大埔醫院治療,認識後成為好友,出院後仍保持聯絡。上周四(十日),兩人傾電話時,葉提及患病及感到不開心,覺得生無可戀,莫疑受感染,亦感到不開心,葉聲稱不知如何自殺,有人提議可飲酒、仰藥及割脈。

本周三(十六日),兩人再度傾電話時決定尋死,相約翌日付諸行動,當天晚上,葉在家中鎅手共八十刀,在手臂鎅下「苦」及「死」兩個字,更拍下照片上網,至翌日清晨六時半,她在個人網誌寫下遺書及葬禮安排細節才離家赴「死亡之約」。

葉與莫在大埔墟火車站集合,乘搭火車出九龍,轉乘巴士過海找酒店尋死,期間莫感到疲倦,葉曾提議折返其上水住所,在住所內尋死,惟莫反對,提議先租住酒店房間,葉亦同意。

最後兩人租住皇后大道西一間酒店的房間,傾談至傍晚,結伴外出用膳後,購買七把鎅刀和兩罐啤酒返回酒店,拿出抗抑鬱藥,以酒來送服,再割脈自殺,未幾同告不支昏睡,至昨晨甦醒過來,兩人發現仍然「活着」,各再服下安眠藥昏睡,早上九時,酒店職員無意中揭發兩人昏睡房內,連忙報警。

警員接報趕至,發現葉的雙手前臂共有數十條傷痕,莫的雙手腕亦受傷,救護員將兩人送院,期間葉需戴上氧氣罩,兩女送院時仍清醒,分別攬着心愛的「史諾比」及小熊公仔。

留58萬元支票捐教會

警員在酒店房間檢獲四把鎅刀,及葉寫下的一封遺書,內容大意謂患病久醫不愈,飽受困擾,但感謝醫護人員多年來的照顧,遺書並夾有一張抬頭為一間教會的支票,面額是五十八萬元。警員亦檢獲莫的筆記簿,寫有憎恨學校老師及被他們壓迫的字句。

莫父與葉母接報趕至醫院,表現憂心忡忡,醫務社工從旁安慰,葉母自責「唔識教女」,母女倆難以溝通。

○六年七月四日,天水圍亦發生一宗轟動的集體自殺案,失婚婦人黃少芳(卅九歲),與金蘭姊妹朱藉華(卅一歲)及紀曉麗(卅八歲),在天華邨華祐樓住所內談心時,疑同病相憐互相感染下,各自寫下遺書後燒炭自殺身亡。


姓葉少女送院時手抱「史諾比」公仔。


姓莫少女(左)手抱熊仔公仔步上救護車,圖右為葉姓少女。

http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/2/1/1/614255/1.html

抽評:無論是未入教會前已是精神病、抑或教會導致她們有精神病,利用別人的精神病來歛財,甚至精神病人自殺後也要捐款給教會,實在無恥。

當然,無恥的回應,包括「我地無叫佢比,佢地自願之嘛」,官腔回應亦有「有精神病應盡早接受治療」、「教會絕不鼓勵自殺」等啦。
支持鼓勵每位離教者
唔通係我教壞佢地??!!點算??
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/ ... page%3D1&page=3

I don't know the reason behind the donation to the chruch. I don't know if the chruch ask them to donate, making use of their mental problems. But this is again a case that can increase the inductive power of the problem of evil (since there is one more case that the "all-knowing, all-good, almighty God" creates any other evil (if it really exists...)).
原帖由 weakest 於 2008-1-20 16:26 發表
唔通係我教壞佢地??!!點算??
http://www.exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1338&extra=page%3D1&page=3

I don't know the reason behind the donation to the chruch. I don't know if the chruch as ...


>>>> But this is again a case that can increase the inductive power of theproblem of evil
>>>> (since there is one more case that the "all-knowing,all-good, almighty God" creates any other evil
>>>> (if it reallyexists...)).

sorry cant quite get it , couldest thou explain a little bit of it ?? cheers ThANKye
原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-1-20 13:21 發表
2008-01-19

【東方日報專訊】兩名風華正茂少女(十六及廿四歲),分別因情緒問題及抑鬱症入院治療,因而相識,出院後仍保持聯絡,近日其中一人感到生無可戀,相約自殺,廿四歲少女本周三先在家鎅手八十刀,至前日早上,在網誌寫下遺書, ...


'those reporters//photographers should not have shown out the faces of those girls ,
原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2008-1-20 13:21 發表
2008-01-19

【東方日報專訊】兩名風華正茂少女(十六及廿四歲),分別因情緒問題及抑鬱症入院治療,因而相識,出院後仍保持聯絡,近日其中一人感到生無可戀,相約自殺,廿四歲少女本周三先在家鎅手八十刀,至前日早上,在網誌寫下遺書, ...


'the girls should b called in 2 read here
http://exchristian.hk/forum/viewthread.php?tid=917&extra=page%3D1 ,
quite a bunch of food4thought

回復 3# 的帖子

There is an argument against the Christian God (the all-knowing, all-good, almighty God), naming "problem of evil". Basically speaking, it is based on the observation (and a judgement) that there is evil in this world, to conclude that this Christian God doesn't exist. If the God is almighty, it should have the ability to prevent the evil. On the other hand, if the God is all-good, it should want to elminate all the evil in this world. Therefore, if such a Christian God exists, there should be no evil in the world. But the observation that this world has evil means that the God doesn't exist. (You could think of the argument is presented in the following way:
premise 1: Christian God exists
premise 2: the almighty God can elminate all evil
premise 3: the all-good God wants to elminate all evil
intermediate conclusion 4: there should be no evil in the world
premise 5: By observation, there is evil in the world
We get a contradiction in 4 and 5. Therefore, we conclude that premise 1 is false.

  But more strictly speaking, there are (at least) 2 versions of the problem of evil: "an deductive version" and "an inductive version".
The deductive version of the problem of evil is that the existence of God and the existence of evil is logically inconsistent. By the observation of evil, this version would conclude that the God MUST NOT exist.
On the other hand, the inductive version of the problem of evil simply an inductive argument, but not a deductive argument. What it means is that the observation of evil IS NOT logical inconsistent with the existence of God, but only cases to support the view that God does not exist. The more "evils" we observe, the more likely that we can conclude God doesn't exist. It is somehow like inductive reasoning in science that as we observe more and more cases that confirms the prediction of a hypothesis, we would regard the hypothesis is more likely to be true.
To understand the difference between the 2 versions, it may be useful to take a grasp on what is "induction" and "deduction". An induction (or inductive argument) is an argument that use examples to support of a conclusion. For example, we may conclude "If people touch fire, they will get hurt" by many observations, like "A touches fire, and gets hurt.", "B touches fire, and gets hurt", etc.. To evaluate an inductive argument, we would measure the "inductive power" of the argument. Basically speaking, the more the case you used to support your conclusion, the "inductive power" of your argument would be increased. If we use 0% (lowest) to 100% (highest) as numerical measure to measure the inductive power, the more examples you use to support your conclusion, the number would be increased. It should be noted that since it is always possible to find a counter example for an inductive argument, the probability could never reach 100%. That means, there is no guarantee that the conclusion must be true, even if you give many examples to support your conclusion.
On the other hand, "deduction" (or deductive argument) is an argument that is not using bulk of examples to support for a certain proposition, but using deductive reasoning. A deductive argument is used to show that: given certain premises, it MUST BE THE CASE THAT the conclusion is true. For example, the following is a deductive argument:
premise 1: all human have legs
premise 2: Tom is a human
conclusion: Tom has legs
To check if a deductive argument is a good argument, we would check for the validity of the argument (if the conclusion really follows from the premises, that means, if it is the case that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE FALSE WHILE ALL THE PREMISE(S) ARE TRUE), and the soundness of the argument (if the argument is valid and all the premises are true). There is no such thing as "inductive power" of a deductive argument, since deduction is about certainty. A deductive argument is to show that the conclusion is IMPOSSIBLE to be false by given premises. We may use 100% to describe the certainty of the conclusion (given the premises)

Therefore, logically speaking, the "deductive version" is a stronger version of the problem of evil, in the sense that it is more easily (or at least, have the same chance) to be refuted. (Compare the statements: "It must be the case that the God doesn't exist", and "It is likely to be the case that the God doesn't exist").

Hopefully, it may helps. And hope that my words are not too confusing....
原帖由 prussianz 於 2008-1-21 01:03 發表


'those reporters//photographers should not have shown out the faces of those girls ,

眼睛打了格仔。

她們可能返錯教會,看這間醫院。。。噢,sorry。。。教會醫治了那麼多奇難雜症,她們可能有救:
http://www.church611.org/Jesus101/news.html

屆時的醫療費,亦可能不用58萬這麼多。
支持鼓勵每位離教者
For this 教會, the 58萬 may not be 醫療費, but may be the "adminstration fee" for.......身後事??!!
原帖由 weakest 於 2008-1-21 14:24 發表
For this 教會, the 58萬 may not be 醫療費, but may be the "adminstration fee" for.......身後事??!!


無錯捐錢教會最愚蠢
原帖由 tka_lai 於 2008-5-2 09:37 發表


無錯捐錢教會最愚蠢


無錯
錢 不如 用 來 比自己 讀多 d 大學學位 e.t.c. , 一定 更 中用,

感謝
感+謝



[ 本帖最後由 prussianz 於 2008-5-3 14:11 編輯 ]
exChristian.info前基督徒,主力:淚儿/泪儿,WEIYAN,龙井树。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。。警告 基督徒:你们一定不够他们玩
realChristianities.com雪龙坛
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個