The problem is that you're argument puts an undue responsibility on the victim. I shouldn't *have* to take unreasonable steps to avoid people online, and the bar for unreasonable must be set pretty low, as cyber-bullying is a purely malicious act.
That's what makes this so difficult for me to understand, though. I guess I never presented this clearly. You shouldn't have to take those unreasonable steps, and I never argued that you had to do that! I just argued that you could, and could not in real life. How am I putting undue responsibility on the victim if the only responsibility I implied was not to commit suicide?
I am a lying liar of the lying cult of liars and will continue this until I fully understand the other side's viewpoint.
At the risk of sounding like a philosophy 101 student, I think the disconnect here is freeform is arguing from a utilitarian standpoint (the situation is less serious because of better methods to avoid it) while everyone else is arguing deontologically (the act itself is equally heinous despite methods to avoid it). So basically you're arguing about two different things; freeform isn't arguing that the bullying is any less malicious, while everyone else isn't arguing that methods to avoid the bullying aren't easier online.
Actually that is 100% completely right, and I think that's what's causing the misunderstandings here. -snip- no wait, that's also right. Dang son, you're good.
Let me put it this way: The offense is not less serious. However, due to the boundary between offender and victim, the situation itself is. And because the situation is less serious, committing suicide over it seems less reasonable.