NationStates Jolt Archive

Just because things haven't gone right for him in the past, doesn't mean there's no chance of things getting better. I don't think that's a rational basis, so I'll discourage it.

This probably breaks some rule of forum argument, but I don't care. This reminds me of playing Blackjack in Vegas - just because I'm down $10,000, that doesn't mean there's no chance of things getting better and winning hundreds of thousands of dollars, so I'll just keep playing.

My statement stands.

Any reasonably intelligent human being who has actually thought about the issue of suicide for any length of time has likely come up with a personal belief regarding suicide. My point is, nothing anyone said before his post was so enlightening, so amazing, so worth reading that it would have any likelihood of altering someone's opinion on the matter...especially someone who is NOT a wishy-washy, unself-aware n00b. You as much as suggested this indeed would happen, and all your posts following up confirm that this was your intention. I'm sorry that I just don't think the discussion up to that point was all that special. My lack of tact notwithstanding, the absolute arrogance of your advice, as opposed to Murav's actual interest in the topic itself, absolutely disgusted me.

Let's look at what I said. Here's a quote:

Cat-Tribe, you should really read the rest of this thread. Trust me.

And, honestly, I think which way it goes depends on the scales. Perfectly rational people come up with perfectly rational reasons as to why their lives should be ended, and there have been cultures where suicide in certain situations is actually more honorable than living.

TCT dealt with the first part by explaining, perfectly rationally, that there were reasons why the whole thread was not read. If you'll go back and notice, I did not reply to the statement about why, but mostly to what was directed to me specifically in response to the comments you made. Now, tell me, where's the arrogance in what I said? You have yet to prove there was any arrogance in it beyond your own accusations that it was arrogant, and you have Murav who said it wasn't.

And, honestly, I find it amusing to be called self-absorbed on here when I argued before you even came around in favor of people considering other viewpoints. I can even provide links to prove it. That further proves to me that your claim of having read the entire topic is false.

Finally, prove what my intention was.

Note: Yes, I know how arrogant I sound. It's something I'm working on. Been an issue for the last five years. It's a side-effect of my own issues over the years.

I agree that mental illness, being a huge factor in suicides, whether you want to actually accept the reams of research on the matter or not, vitiates a person's free choice on the matter, and therefore, should not be encouraged, or allowed. In those cases, mental health professionals are clear...intervention is needed.

Murav already dealt with the mental health part better than I did. Honestly, how much of that association is assumption simply because of societal pressures? We don't know. That's one of the major weaknesses of the mental health sciences.

As for the part about mental health causing it: If it's that, you'll get no disagreement from me in that intervention is needed in most cases. You will get a disagreement that intervention is successful in all cases.

I agree issue is chronic pain, terminal illness...not only do I think a person should have the power to choose to terminate their life, I also believe that they should be able to get medical help to do so. I do not, however, think this decision should ever be made lightly.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day, all this talk of 'allowing' suicide is meaningless. More effort should be spent on helping those left behind, as they are at a heightened risk of suicide themselves, and more needs to be done to lift the stigma of suicide so that those affected by it (either considering it, or suffering from the loss of someone to suicide) can access resources.

Will you stop being so damned sensible? How am I supposed to properly demonize you and make you sound like a horrid monster that deserves to be chased by a mob wielding pitchforks and torches if you're being sensible? Dear god, man, you're ruining the argument with reason :tongue:

I think my serious opinion of this part should be obvious ^^

What I'm saying is, pointing out that I'm bias, doesn't actually mean shit. I can be bias, whilst presenting objective arguments.
Except, of course, that you're not.

Which is why I never actually said that all suicide is irrational.
No, you're very good at squirming that way -- refusing to include rational suicide in your arguments about suicide being irrational, but appealing to rational suicide when you get backed into a corner about the inherent bias of your irrationality argument.

Nobody is realistically under any obligation to do anything ever, it's all moral rhetoric.
Then why bother asking them do continue living?

I'm not advocating force here, I'm advocating discouragement. If I had a relative in prison who committed suicide, and I found out that nothing had been done to discourage it, I would be disgusted.
Mm-hmm. So, if your relative was suicidal, and the prison administrators had a talk with him in which they said, "Well, we think you shouldn't do that, because, you know, there's always help, and we have therapists if you want to them," and your relative still went ahead and hanged themselves in their cell, would you be satisfied that the prison officials had done enough, discouragement-wise?

You have been asked several times by other posters to define "discouragement" -- if you don't advocate force, then just what do you advocate? But you have yet to answer.

Until we know that nothing can be done.
And when will we know that?

But what does this change in practical terms? What will change in terms of how we actually do things?
Very simply, it will lead to rational suicides not being treated as irrational, as they typically are now. It is very common for terminally ill patients and/or the elderly, for example, to be declared mentally incompetent because they wish to commit suicide. I do not believe that is right.

And yes, I know that you wish to exclude rational suicides such as the terminally ill from the discussion, but I have decided not to cooperate with you on that.

So, according to you, the DSM-IV's definition of "chronic" (as regards depression) is incorrect, because that is what I was quoting.

But, pray tell, what types of depression are more severe?

http://allpsych.com/disorders/mood/dysthymia.html

According to DSM-IV and every book I've looked in? Major depression, which is also known as clinical depression.

I meant the actual condition of depression, not just temporary depression in reaction to an event.

Ahhh I see. Depresion is a funny old beast. It can come and go, it can be gone forever or a week, or a year or whatever. It can come back stronger, or weaker, it can come back and never be gone again.

I guess it has as many flavours as there are people. Like I said earlyer on, you have to take it on a case by case basis.

However this really does not detract from my original stance, which is that each indivdidual has the right to say when their own life ends(if indeed they have any control over it).

Let me just say that I do belive that suicide is a waste, you never know what may have happend if a suicide fails, they may have a great life after, they may go on to do great things.
Yet my belife in the ownership of mind and body of the individual, overrules a hell of a lot of my other belifes, it is in essance one of my cores.

People already hold the right to life, why not the right to death?

No, you're very good at squirming that way -- refusing to include rational suicide in your arguments about suicide being irrational, but appealing to rational suicide when you get backed into a corner about the inherent bias of your irrationality argument.


And you're pretty good at completely misrepresenting my argument. All I'm saying is the vast majority of suicides, excluding the terminally ill and very elderly, are irrational, so it's justified to try and discourage it. I never said they were inherently irrational.


Then why bother asking them do continue living?


You tell me why it's a bad idea first.


Mm-hmm. So, if your relative was suicidal, and the prison administrators had a talk with him in which they said, "Well, we think you shouldn't do that, because, you know, there's always help, and we have therapists if you want to them," and your relative still went ahead and hanged themselves in their cell, would you be satisfied that the prison officials had done enough, discouragement-wise?


No, I think they should have actually sent a therapist to talk to him and try to convince him out of it.


You have been asked several times by other posters to define "discouragement" -- if you don't advocate force, then just what do you advocate? But you have yet to answer.


I have actually, it's in one of my responses to peepee.


And when will we know that?


When there is no sign at all of him changing his mind, despite persistent attempts.


Very simply, it will lead to rational suicides not being treated as irrational, as they typically are now. It is very common for terminally ill patients and/or the elderly, for example, to be declared mentally incompetent because they wish to commit suicide. I do not believe that is right.

And yes, I know that you wish to exclude rational suicides such as the terminally ill from the discussion, but I have decided not to cooperate with you on that.

Good for you, but I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with people who don't fall under those categories, what should change with them?

People already hold the right to life, why not the right to death?

Ahha exactly. You just cannot have one without the other.

I propose that we destigmatize suicide. (is that a word? firefox says it isn't, but firefox also says firefox isn't a word)

Hospitals should be allowed to euthanize people who wish to die - with the caveat that they have 2 hours of counseling and a seven day waiting period. One hour of counseling the first time they go in, one hour the time they come back. In addition, during those seven days, the Hospital will find people to take all his organs, as they will be harvested upon death.

If the person decides after the seven days that they still want to die, they will be euthanized by the hospital in the most painless way possible, and their organs harvested to be given to those that need them.

What do you all think?

I propose that we destigmatize suicide. (is that a word? firefox says it isn't, but firefox also says firefox isn't a word)

Hospitals should be allowed to euthanize people who wish to die - with the caveat that they have 2 hours of counseling and a seven day waiting period. One hour of counseling the first time they go in, one hour the time they come back. In addition, during those seven days, the Hospital will find people to take all his organs, as they will be harvested upon death.

If the person decides after the seven days that they still want to die, they will be euthanized by the hospital in the most painless way possible, and their organs harvested to be given to those that need them.

What do you all think?

Sounds fine to me.

I propose that we destigmatize suicide. (is that a word? firefox says it isn't, but firefox also says firefox isn't a word)

Hospitals should be allowed to euthanize people who wish to die - with the caveat that they have 2 hours of counseling and a seven day waiting period. One hour of counseling the first time they go in, one hour the time they come back. In addition, during those seven days, the Hospital will find people to take all his organs, as they will be harvested upon death.

If the person decides after the seven days that they still want to die, they will be euthanized by the hospital in the most painless way possible, and their organs harvested to be given to those that need them.

What do you all think?

Well, I don't think 2 hours is nearly enough. It can take months of counselling to stop people from being suicidal.

http://allpsych.com/disorders/mood/dysthymia.html

According to DSM-IV and every book I've looked in? Major depression, which is also known as clinical depression.

Okay seriously.

What are you hoping to accomplish here?

You are being extremely offensive. Imagine having some internet git telling you that your 'issues' are 'x' instead of 'y', and quibbling on the fucking issue to no end.

Well, I don't think 2 hours is nearly enough. It can take months of counselling to stop people from being suicidal.

Or they may not stop at all, even after months. I figured two counseling sessions in a 7 day period is a reasonable compromise. After all, if they're just upset that a girlfriend dumped them or something, seven days is long enough to get your head screwed back on halfway straight. So, where is the cutoff point?

However, if you make them endure months of counseling on end, they'll just go buy a gun and shoot themselves or hang themselves. Then, instead of it being nice and clean in a hospital, and allowing the organs they don't need to do some good - they die in their bedroom and are found by a relative.

Or they may not stop at all, even after months. I figured two counseling sessions in a 7 day period is a reasonable compromise. After all, if they're just upset that a girlfriend dumped them or something, seven days is long enough to get your head screwed back on halfway straight. So, where is the cutoff point?

However, if you make them endure months of counseling on end, they'll just go buy a gun and shoot themselves or hang themselves. Then, instead of it being nice and clean in a hospital, and allowing the organs they don't need to do some good - they die in their bedroom and are found by a relative.

I disagree, just because you're suicidal, doesn't mean you're extremely impatient. Some maybe too impatient to wait even the whole 7 days however, I feel that 2 months is a reasonable compromise.

I propose that we destigmatize suicide. (is that a word? firefox says it isn't, but firefox also says firefox isn't a word)

Hospitals should be allowed to euthanize people who wish to die - with the caveat that they have 2 hours of counseling and a seven day waiting period. One hour of counseling the first time they go in, one hour the time they come back. In addition, during those seven days, the Hospital will find people to take all his organs, as they will be harvested upon death.

If the person decides after the seven days that they still want to die, they will be euthanized by the hospital in the most painless way possible, and their organs harvested to be given to those that need them.

What do you all think?

As I said earlier, I'd make the period longer for people that lead normal lives. About 5 months or so. That also gives the person the time to put his/her affairs in order. Settle debts, sign wills and that sort of thing.

And you're pretty good at completely misrepresenting my argument. All I'm saying is the vast majority of suicides, excluding the terminally ill and very elderly, are irrational, so it's justified to try and discourage it. I never said they were inherently irrational.
Then I don't understand why you keep arguing this so vehemently. Nobody in this thread has said that people who are irrational should not be stopped from harming themselves while they are not in their right minds. So, what are you defending your point against?

You tell me why it's a bad idea first.
No, you first -- why is it a good idea?

No, I think they should have actually sent a therapist to talk to him and try to convince him out of it.
Okay, and if the therapist has a few talks with him, say four or five, and then he kills himself, would you be satisfied that the prison had done enough to discourage him?

I have actually, it's in one of my responses to peepee.
Who?

And I have read your responses. I have not seen anything that is specific or gives any indication of where you draw any lines on this.

When there is no sign at all of him changing his mind, despite persistent attempts.
Define "persistent attempts."

Good for you, but I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with people who don't fall under those categories, what should change with them?
How many times do you have to be told that I am saying that irrational people should not be left to harm themselves while they are not in their right minds, but people who are in their right minds should be allowed to do as they see fit, even to the point of suicide, before you get it?

How many times do you need to be told that I am concerned with and talking about how rational suicides are treated before you stop trying to back me into some kind of corner about irrational suicides?

(By the way, just mentioning, but we are getting close to the stage where I'm going to start telling you to read the damn thread. Please pay attention to the arguments that have already been made, thanks.)

As I said earlier, I'd make the period longer for people that lead normal lives. About 5 months or so. That also gives the person the time to put his/her affairs in order. Settle debts, sign wills and that sort of thing.

Can you define "normal lives", and also define what you would do for those that have "abnormal lives"?

I disagree, just because you're suicidal, doesn't mean you're extremely impatient. Some maybe too impatient to wait even the whole 7 days however, I feel that 2 months is a reasonable compromise.

But you *do* believe that a person who is inherently depressed and not dying (within the next year or two) should have the right to take his own life?

The game of life is hard to play. I'm gonna lose it anyway. The losing card I'll someday lay, so this is all I have to say. Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes, and I can take or leave it if I please.

Can you define "normal lives", and also define what you would do for those that have "abnormal lives"?

Someone who is in extreme pain 24/7, permanently in and out of the hospital etc. could opt to die sooner. Same for someone who has few ties to the rest of society.

Someone who is in extreme pain 24/7, permanently in and out of the hospital etc. could opt to die sooner. Same for someone who has few ties to the rest of society.

Reasonable. I say that 5 months is too long, but we can haggle.

Then I don't understand why you keep arguing this so vehemently. Nobody in this thread has said that people who are irrational should not be stopped from harming themselves while they are not in their right minds. So, what are you defending your point against?


Yes but the issue gets heated because we don't know for sure that the person is rational or not, so it will have to result in a few people going through heavy discouragement that wont have any affect on them.


No, you first -- why is it a good idea?


Because it will save lives.


Okay, and if the therapist has a few talks with him, say four or five, and then he kills himself, would you be satisfied that the prison had done enough to discourage him?


Perhaps, probably needs more than that though.


Who?

And I have read your responses. I have not seen anything that is specific or gives any indication of where you draw any lines on this.


Peepelonia.


Define "persistent attempts."


I'm currently in the process of working out a suitable amount with galloism.


How many times do you have to be told that I am saying that irrational people should not be left to harm themselves while they are not in their right minds, but people who are in their right minds should be allowed to do as they see fit, even to the point of suicide, before you get it?


But we can never know if they are or not for sure in many cases.

I propose that we destigmatize suicide. (is that a word? firefox says it isn't, but firefox also says firefox isn't a word)

Hospitals should be allowed to euthanize people who wish to die - with the caveat that they have 2 hours of counseling and a seven day waiting period. One hour of counseling the first time they go in, one hour the time they come back. In addition, during those seven days, the Hospital will find people to take all his organs, as they will be harvested upon death.

If the person decides after the seven days that they still want to die, they will be euthanized by the hospital in the most painless way possible, and their organs harvested to be given to those that need them.

What do you all think?
I don't think that would be an appropriate job for a hospital. They have enough on their plate already. I do believe that doctors should be allowed to assist the suicides of terminal patients, but not necessarily the suicides of those who are not already dying but simply do not wish to continue living. Choosing to die is not necessarily a medical situation, so I don't think it would be appropriate necessarily to involve doctors or nurses in it.

However, I do wish suicide could be destigmatized.

But you *do* believe that a person who is inherently depressed and not dying (within the next year or two) should have the right to take his own life?

Yes.

I don't think that would be an appropriate job for a hospital. They have enough on their plate already. I do believe that doctors should be allowed to assist the suicides of terminal patients, but not necessarily the suicides of those who are not already dying but simply do not wish to continue living. Choosing to die is not necessarily a medical situation, so I don't think it would be appropriate necessarily to involve doctors or nurses in it.

However, I do wish suicide could be destigmatized.

Well, the reason I suggested hospitals is that, at least in the United States, we have a serious lack of available organs for patients. To part out a completely healthy body could use that one dying life to save many who want to live.

I've heard of "suicide clinic" suggestions and so forth, but that just seems like a large extra expense in infrastructure where the infrastructure already exists.

Yes.

Thank you your honor - I'm done with this witness.

Reasonable. I say that 5 months is too long, but we can haggle.

We can make it dependent on how greatly others would be affected by ones death. So the director of a corporation supplying jobs to 1500 people and having 3 underage kids at home would have a legal waiting time of 5 months, while the 90 year old man with no living descendants or friends can have a shorter period.

We can make it dependent on how greatly others would be affected by ones death. So the director of a coorporation with 1500 people would have to wait 5 months, while the 90 year old man with no living descendants or friends can have a shorter period.

Reasonable. However, if the person was originally sentenced to five months, and they manage to get their stuff together in a shorter period - say three - could they go early?

Like, in that instance, if the director of the corporation transferred ownership and operation to XYZ person, and everything else was in order, could he go early?

Yes but the issue gets heated because we don't know for sure that the person is rational or not, so it will have to result in a few people going through heavy discouragement that wont have any affect on them.
So we're back where we started, with you, having acknowledged the existence of rational reasons for suicide, simply choosing to ignore them in favor of assuming irrationality.

You also still show no justification for making it any of your business anyway, by the way.

Because it will save lives.
Save them for what, for whom?

If you stop a life-without-parole prisoner from killing himself, what life are you "saving"? And for whom -- the prisoner who can do nothing with that life but suffer, or his family who can do nothing with him but watch him suffer?

If you stop a person from dying even though they really, really want to die, what are you "saving" for them? A life they don't want anyway?

Everybody dies, H. Some of us choose to decide when and how. Why is that a problem?

Perhaps, probably needs more than that though.
Well, what WOULD satisfy you. You're being very vague about this.

Peepelonia.
Odd nickname.

I'm currently in the process of working out a suitable amount with galloism.
I can hardly wait.

But we can never know if they are or not for sure in many cases.
"We can never know"? In that case, I really can't wait to see what limits you place on how much intervention you think is appropriate to satisfy you that a person can be allowed to die if they want to.

Maybe bring in the death penalty as a punishment for attempted suicide.

I have no idea whatever what your situation is, and I'm not prying, but I do wish there was something I could do to help you have a good time while you're here (in this world, I mean).

Orgasms tend to help people have a better time . . .

Reasonable. However, if the person was originally sentenced to five months, and they manage to get their stuff together in a shorter period - say three - could they go early?

Like, in that instance, if the director of the corporation transferred ownership and operation to XYZ person, and everything else was in order, could he go early?

We can let the lawyers sort that one out. They need to make a living as well after all ;)

Originally Posted by Galloism
But you *do* believe that a person who is inherently depressed and not dying (within the next year or two) should have the right to take his own life?
Yes.

Thank you your honor - I'm done with this witness.
Same here. There's no point of dispute anymore.

Maybe bring in the death penalty as a punishment for attempted suicide.

Ironically, that has in fact been done in the past.

Orgasms tend to help people have a better time . . .
-_-

Moving on.

Okay seriously.

What are you hoping to accomplish here?

You are being extremely offensive. Imagine having some internet git telling you that your 'issues' are 'x' instead of 'y', and quibbling on the fucking issue to no end.

Honestly? I had to go back and investigate the line of conversation that led to that post to find out myself. That's part of what happens when people get too wrapped up in a subject, and usually I prefer to just delete a post and bow out by now because I get too invested.

The entire thing started with a question on people who are chronically suicidal to the point medication doesn't work. I answered it, based off my own knowledge, by making an estimate off of how severe a depression a person would have to have in order to deal with it: Which is to say, very severe and the type that's not exactly going to fade at any point.

TCT countered by saying that I was making an argument that suicide is the only rational option in that case (in fact, I tried to word it in a such a way to make it obvious the type of depression I was talking about pretty much removes rational thought) and then went on to use his own form of depression as part of his argument (in fact, as a key example of it). Specifically, that he has a severe form of chronic depression.

I tried to clarify it, misworded my clarification a bit (a mistake on my end), and tried to make it obvious that TCT's type of depression is not what I was talking about. TCT took offense to the miswording, based his entire reply off of it, and then said I was arguing that suicide is the only rational choice for a certain group of people... despite the fact I went out of my way to make it obvious that wasn't what I was saying.

At that point I became convinced he was misrepresenting my posts on purpose. Made a generalist argument based on what he said (since he brought it up anyway and I was getting miffed over his style of argument) and moved on to try to make the rest of my argument obvious. From that point on, it was about his form of depression.

What was I trying to accomplish? Proving to him that his entire basis for challenging an answer to someone else based on a statement that pretty obviously wasn't about his form of depression was pretty much nonexistant. And what was his basis for challenging me on it? That he has a type of depression, which obviously wasn't even the same thing as what I was discussing.

Part of why I didn't challenge you on your career seriously is the simply fact that, admittedly, my bringing up your training was a bad move on my end and something I shouldn't have done, and for which I owe you an apology. I'll own up and admit to making mistakes in this topic, including my wording that really got the discussion of TCT's depression started. That should have been worded better. Especially since I was trying to steer the conversation away from his depression.

But, yeah. This argument goes in my "I made an epic fail" file.

We can let the lawyers sort that one out. They need to make a living as well after all ;)

Fair enough. :D

Odd nickname.

Not a nickname man, the name of my nation!

Maybe bring in the death penalty as a punishment for attempted suicide.

No, a Life Sentence. It's much more fitting.

Not a nickname man, the name of my nation!
... Okay then...

Moving on.

We can let the lawyers sort that one out. They need to make a living as well after all ;)

What would you say should be the minimum for a non-dying person?

For instance - no family, no significant friends, pretty much a hermit. Has a job, but it's not an important job (stock boy at wal-mart). Just tired and is ready to go.

Part of why I didn't challenge you on your career seriously is the simply fact that, admittedly, my bringing up your training was a bad move on my end and something I shouldn't have done, and for which I owe you an apology.
If you did that to me, I missed it, you might be thinking of someone else.

If you did that to me, I missed it, you might be thinking of someone else.

The part about studying the mental health sciences, to which you replied with your degree certification and which I responded to with a joke.

Well, anyway, wish I could say it was a good one. But, after this night... meh. I'd rather forget this one existed.

The part about studying the mental health sciences, to which you replied with your degree certification and which I responded to with a joke.

Well, anyway, wish I could say it was a good one. But, after this night... meh. I'd rather forget this one existed.

That was Nervun. I'm in law:p

That was Nervun. I'm in law:p

XD! Oops.

Well, then I owe NERVUN an apology. That's a sign of how long this one has been and how many hours it's been since I've had sleep.

What would you say should be the minimum for a non-dying person?

For instance - no family, no significant friends, pretty much a hermit. Has a job, but it's not an important job (stock boy at wal-mart). Just tired and is ready to go.

Hmm. A month or so. Enough time to get over the most intense part of any "I wanna kill myself" impulse. If the desire is still there - farewell sir.

http://allpsych.com/disorders/mood/dysthymia.html

According to DSM-IV and every book I've looked in? Major depression, which is also known as clinical depression.

"Chronic" and "major" aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't have a copy of my latest diagnosis handy, but I believe it includes (among other illnesses): Major Depressive Disorder, Chronic, With Psychotic Features. Although the persistence of my disorder echoes dysthmia, that is not what I have.

So when I say I understand how "those people" you describe as hopeless feel, I am not just making a cute argument, but being honest.

When is it acceptable?

Should people have the right to take their life whenever they want?
ive been thinking about your friend since i read this thread this morning.

i think that what he did was OK. given that i dont know how he did it or how many loose ends he left that he should have dealt with first, it is his right to decide to go now instead of waiting for his illness to take him. any loose ends he may have left are a seperate issue that should be thought of apart from his decision to end his life now.

no matter that you might have wished that he made a different decision or that he would have waited longer it was his decision to make. he could not spare you the grief of his loss, he was going to die anyway. he could not make it easier, there was only pain and grief coming. if he was facing certain death and pain it is a legitimate choice to opt out of that by killing himself now.

people make all kinds of decisions that we wouldnt make in their place. they make decisions that we desperately wish that they wouldnt make. if they make their decisions in full understanding of what they are doing we have to respect their right to make them. to do less is to deny them their full humanity.

forgive him for the pain he has caused you and his family.

my condolences for your loss.

Honestly? I had to go back and investigate the line of conversation that led to that post to find out myself. That's part of what happens when people get too wrapped up in a subject, and usually I prefer to just delete a post and bow out by now because I get too invested.

The entire thing started with a question on people who are chronically suicidal to the point medication doesn't work. I answered it, based off my own knowledge, by making an estimate off of how severe a depression a person would have to have in order to deal with it: Which is to say, very severe and the type that's not exactly going to fade at any point.

TCT countered by saying that I was making an argument that suicide is the only rational option in that case (in fact, I tried to word it in a such a way to make it obvious the type of depression I was talking about pretty much removes rational thought) and then went on to use his own form of depression as part of his argument (in fact, as a key example of it). Specifically, that he has a severe form of chronic depression.

I tried to clarify it, misworded my clarification a bit (a mistake on my end), and tried to make it obvious that TCT's type of depression is not what I was talking about. TCT took offense to the miswording, based his entire reply off of it, and then said I was arguing that suicide is the only rational choice for a certain group of people... despite the fact I went out of my way to make it obvious that wasn't what I was saying.

At that point I became convinced he was misrepresenting my posts on purpose. Made a generalist argument based on what he said (since he brought it up anyway and I was getting miffed over his style of argument) and moved on to try to make the rest of my argument obvious. From that point on, it was about his form of depression.

What was I trying to accomplish? Proving to him that his entire basis for challenging an answer to someone else based on a statement that pretty obviously wasn't about his form of depression was pretty much nonexistant. And what was his basis for challenging me on it? That he has a type of depression, which obviously wasn't even the same thing as what I was discussing.

Part of why I didn't challenge you on your career seriously is the simply fact that, admittedly, my bringing up your training was a bad move on my end and something I shouldn't have done, and for which I owe you an apology. I'll own up and admit to making mistakes in this topic, including my wording that really got the discussion of TCT's depression started. That should have been worded better. Especially since I was trying to steer the conversation away from his depression.

But, yeah. This argument goes in my "I made an epic fail" file.

I'm still too seething mad to be particularly gracious, but I think you are making some attempt here to accept blame for our heated exchange and apologize for it.

I recognize my passions caused me to make some unwise posts and (although I disagree with your characterization of our exchange) I admit my responses to your posts may not have been completely fair either.

The bottom line for me is two things: (1) when you talk about those people with extended severe depression of the worst kind, you are talking about me and (2) just because such a person may feel their situation is hopeless and wish to die does not make that the right choice for them. Now I note you added the caveat that the major depression in question not only be persistent, but untreatable. At what point do you determine that it is untreatable and they should die? After 1 year, 2 years, when?

EDIT: 1. My personal relationship with this issue is why I didn't read the thread to begin with and why I should have resisted posting.

2. I am now curious. Are you a medical professional/psychologist/etc?

When is it acceptable?

Should people have the right to take their life whenever they want?

Yes, they should.

A friend of mine took her life at 20. She was intelligent, loving and very beautiful. But somehow (I'm unable to imagine, but that's beside the point) the torment of living on for maybe another 60 years was too much for her. It was her right, yes.
She ruined her parents' life.

But you *do* believe that a person who is inherently depressed and not dying (within the next year or two) should have the right to take his own life?

Yes.

Thank you your honor - I'm done with this witness.

1. I am concerned that we not confuse what some has a "right" to do and what is "right" for that person to do. It may be my right to die, but that doesn't mean I should do so.

2. It is also important to distinquish being "depressed" from suffering from the mental illness of clinical depression. Mood disorders and other mental illnesses have suicidal thoughts and even acts as symptoms. I'm concerned what "honoring the rights" of someone who has a severe mental illness means in this context.

3. The bottom line is whether it is ever right to intervene in anyway to stop someone from committing suicide. If so, when? And to what degree of intervention? I don't think there is an easy answer to those questions.

1. I am concerned that we not confuse what some has a "right" to do and what is "right" for that person to do. It may be my right to die, but that doesn't mean I should do so.

Granted, but who decides? I think you should. (You - being the general you. The person faced with the decision)

2. It is also important to distinquish being "depressed" from suffering from the mental illness of clinical depression. Mood disorders and other mental illnesses have suicidal thoughts and even acts as symptoms. I'm concerned what "honoring the rights" of someone who has a severe mental illness means in this context.

Well at some point there has to be a line - is this person competent or not? That is not an easy line to draw. However, as long as we already have a standing definition of competence - the ability to stand trial - I suggest we use that one. If this person could commit murder and be found competent to stand trial, then he should be able to commit suicide and have the competence to do so.

3. The bottom line is whether it is ever right to intervene in anyway to stop someone from committing suicide. If so, when? And to what degree of intervention? I don't think there is an easy answer to those questions.

No, there really isn't. However, if anything, I will err on the side of caution. The side that does not impinge on the rights of the individual in question.

Now, if a person thinks he is a stapler and wants to throw said stapler off a cliff, I will just as quickly as you declare him insane and keep him from harming himself. However, again, we must draw a line somewhere where a person becomes no longer legally competent.

Granted, but who decides? I think you should. (You - being the general you. The person faced with the decision)

Well at some point there has to be a line - is this person competent or not? That is not an easy line to draw. However, as long as we already have a standing definition of competence - the ability to stand trial - I suggest we use that one. If this person could commit murder and be found competent to stand trial, then he should be able to commit suicide and have the competence to do so.

No, there really isn't. However, if anything, I will err on the side of caution. The side that does not impinge on the rights of the individual in question.

Now, if a person thinks he is a stapler and wants to throw said stapler off a cliff, I will just as quickly as you declare him insane and keep him from harming himself. However, again, we must draw a line somewhere where a person becomes no longer legally competent.

Um, problem: there are several different legal concepts of competence.

Competence to stand trial focuses primarily on (1) one's ability to understand the charges against them and (2) one's ability to assist in one's defense. This standard isn't very helpful to the question of suicide.

The standards for whether one can be held criminally responsible for one's actions (i.e., "guilty but mentally ill" or "not guilty by reason of insanity") are closer to what I think you intend. Under the Model Penal Code, a person suffering form a mental disease or defect is not responsible for his actions if he lacked the substantial capacity to (i) appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or (ii) conform his conduct to the law. The combination of the rule acts as to emcompass acquittal if proof shows that as a result of a mental defect he either lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his actions or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. This discusses both the cognitive and volitional capacity of insanity.

The problem here would be with the societal prejudice Muravyets has discussed that holds a suicidal impulse to be criminal and irrational in and of itself.

That same problem arises with the standards for involuntary commitment or treatment, which include whether the individual poses a danger to himself/herself.

Again, it's a sticky wicket. I certainly agree with Muravyets that there are circumstances in which suicide is not only a rational choice, but a fundamental right. But we have to be careful when we are talking about a symptom of a disease that is (usually) treatable.

My friend committed suicide tonight. He had recently been diagnosed with a particularly nasty cancer and was terminal. I'm kinda trying to figure out how to decompress and go to sleep so I can help his mother sort things out tomorrow.

I apologize, btw, if I have unduly hijacked this thread with my arguments or discussion of my own situation.

I hope this thread was cathartic.

And I want to be clear I think people faced with circumstances such as your friend not only have a right to die with dignity but are often right to do so. I know that it is not easy to deal with someone's suicide, regardless of the circumstances. Hang in there.

The standards for whether one can be held criminally responsible for one's actions (i.e., "guilty but mentally ill" or "not guilty by reason of insanity") are closer to what I think you intend. Under the Model Penal Code, a person suffering form a mental disease or defect is not responsible for his actions if he lacked the substantial capacity to (i) appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or (ii) conform his conduct to the law. The combination of the rule acts as to emcompass acquittal if proof shows that as a result of a mental defect he either lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his actions or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. This discusses both the cognitive and volitional capacity of insanity.

That's the one I meant. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

The problem here would be with the societal prejudice Muryavets has discussed that holds a suicidal impulse to be criminal and irrational in and of itself.

Which it isn't, but you are correct that that's a major problem. Societal prejudice alone has to make us even more cautious.

That same problem arises with the standards for involuntary commitment or treatment, which include whether the individual poses a danger to himself/herself.

A travesty, but also true.

Again, it's a sticky wicket. I certainly agree with Muryavets that there are circumstances in which suicide is not only a rational choice, but a fundamental right. But we have to be careful when we are talking about a symptom of a disease that is (usually) treatable.

Suicide is not always a symptom of a disease. In many cases it is a rational way to end the pain that the person is or will be facing.

I also wouldn't jump straight to "usually" when it comes to treatableness. Perhaps "sometimes" or "frequently".

EDIT:

Washington University in St. Louis (http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/864.html) says that 70% of people respond to treatment. I guess that's "usually".

I apologize, btw, if I have unduly hijacked this thread with my arguments or discussion of my own situation.

I hope this thread was cathartic.

And I want to be clear I think people faced with circumstances such as your friend not only have a right to die with dignity but are often right to do so. I know that it is not easy to deal with someone's suicide, regardless of the circumstances. Hang in there.

I tend to deal with things better when I'm confused by hearing other people's thoughts. I didn't mean to hijack it with my own personal situation. I would rather people be honest instead of patronizing (not that you are being that) so that's why I left the OP as simple as possible.

I think it's an important discussion, I hope we can all come away with a new understanding of another's positions, biases, or opinions on the subject.

I tend to deal with things better when I'm confused by hearing other people's thoughts. I didn't mean to hijack it with my own personal situation. I would rather people be honest instead of patronizing (not that you are being that) so that's why I left the OP as simple as possible.

I think it's an important discussion, I hope we can all come away with a new understanding of another's positions, biases, or opinions on the subject.

Yeah, I kind of went on a rampage with my views here, but I am trying to keep it professional. Most areas discussed on NSG I don't really have a strong opinion about. This one I do. I kind of drug your thread off the deep end.

Sorry about that.

Yea, of course they should. It's their body, they can do what they want.

Um, problem: there are several different legal concepts of competence.

Competence to stand trial focuses primarily on (1) one's ability to understand the charges against them and (2) one's ability to assist in one's defense. This standard isn't very helpful to the question of suicide.

The standards for whether one can be held criminally responsible for one's actions (i.e., "guilty but mentally ill" or "not guilty by reason of insanity") are closer to what I think you intend. Under the Model Penal Code, a person suffering form a mental disease or defect is not responsible for his actions if he lacked the substantial capacity to (i) appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or (ii) conform his conduct to the law. The combination of the rule acts as to emcompass acquittal if proof shows that as a result of a mental defect he either lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his actions or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. This discusses both the cognitive and volitional capacity of insanity.

The problem here would be with the societal prejudice Muryavets has discussed that holds a suicidal impulse to be criminal and irrational in and of itself.

That same problem arises with the standards for involuntary commitment or treatment, which include whether the individual poses a danger to himself/herself.

Again, it's a sticky wicket. I certainly agree with Muryavets that there are circumstances in which suicide is not only a rational choice, but a fundamental right. But we have to be careful when we are talking about a symptom of a disease that is (usually) treatable.
I'd like to just add by way of clarification, in case it's needed, that I agree with this caveat 100%. I was arguing with Hydesland because, based on what he posted, I felt he was arguing from the position of societal prejudice which holds suicide to be in and of itself an irrational act and, thus, proof of irrationality and/or mental illness and/or legal incompetency. I know he said otherwise, but I still felt that despite his disclaimers, his argument was dependent on that assumption. So I hounded him about how MUCH discouragement -- or caution or examination or whatever -- he would want before accepting that someone was deciding to die based on a rational thought process, which other people would be wrong to interfere with.

I think that, as long as the "suicide is inherently irrational" assumption is prevalent in society, we will not reach a point where people can claim and exercise a right to die the way they want, just as they claim the right to live the way they want.

My hope would be that, if we can get free of that assumption, we will perhaps be able to focus more clearly on whether a person is contemplating suicide rationally or irrationally and intervene where it is needed and not intervene where it is not appropriate.

I'd like to just add by way of clarification, in case it's needed, that I agree with this caveat 100%. I was arguing with Hydesland because, based on what he posted, I felt he was arguing from the position of societal prejudice which holds suicide to be in and of itself an irrational act and, thus, proof of irrationality and/or mental illness and/or legal incompetency. I know he said otherwise, but I still felt that despite his disclaimers, his argument was dependent on that assumption. So I hounded him about how MUCH discouragement -- or caution or examination or whatever -- he would want before accepting that someone was deciding to die based on a rational thought process, which other people would be wrong to interfere with.

I think that, as long as the "suicide is inherently irrational" assumption is prevalent in society, we will not reach a point where people can claim and exercise a right to die the way they want, just as they claim the right to live the way they want.

My hope would be that, if we can get free of that assumption, we will perhaps be able to focus more clearly on whether a person is contemplating suicide rationally or irrationally and intervene where it is needed and not intervene where it is not appropriate.

Despite some shots across each other's bow in this thread, I believe we agree more than we disagree on this issue.

I believe whole-heartedly in the right to die with dignity and to assisted suicide.

I also believe it is possible to have a wholly rational desire to end one's life.

But, because I don't just reject out-of-hand the studies done by experts on the matter, I believe that a very high percentage of suicides are symptoms of mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders. Thus, I won't sign on to "well, whatever you want is prima facie acceptable." We should look to help those considering suicide -- for whatever reason -- and see if their lives can be improved to a point that they desire to live.

"Chronic" and "major" aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't have a copy of my latest diagnosis handy, but I believe it includes (among other illnesses): Major Depressive Disorder, Chronic, With Psychotic Features. Although the persistence of my disorder echoes dysthmia, that is not what I have.

So when I say I understand how "those people" you describe as hopeless feel, I am not just making a cute argument, but being honest.

Ah! In that case, I'm wrong in what I was arguing.

It would help if "chronic depression" wasn't also another name for dysmythia... which is a problem the field is, from what I understand, working on eliminating.

I'm still too seething mad to be particularly gracious, but I think you are making some attempt here to accept blame for our heated exchange and apologize for it.

I don't blame you. I should have left when my own temper began to rise. The fact I didn't is purely my fault, and it definitely colored my replies too much.

So, to do this right, I apologize for how it went.

I recognize my passions caused me to make some unwise posts and (although I disagree with your characterization of our exchange) I admit my responses to your posts may not have been completely fair either.

The bottom line for me is two things: (1) when you talk about those people with extended severe depression of the worst kind, you are talking about me and (2) just because such a person may feel their situation is hopeless and wish to die does not make that the right choice for them. Now I note you added the caveat that the major depression in question not only be persistent, but untreatable. At what point do you determine that it is untreatable and they should die? After 1 year, 2 years, when?

I know the feeling on #1 there. The absolute worst part is hearing a family member state they're concerned for you and not being able to believe able to believe them.

With the cases I'm talking about, there's absolutely no response to normal treatment. The person doesn't get better because of counselling, medication, or even more extreme things such as electroshock. I call it untreatable simply because it is. As for when they should die: They shouldn't, but at that level, if they honestly wanted to, there's no realistic way of stopping it short of extreme medication and keeping them that medicated. People being put in that category have luckily lessened as advancements have happened, but there's always those few out there.

I dunno how to make a judgement call on when they should be allowed to die. The part of me that's more logical on the matter says they shouldn't, that we should keep them alive while trying to figure out a way to treat it. Another part says that keeping them alive for a treatment that might never develop is cruel.

EDIT: 1. My personal relationship with this issue is why I didn't read the thread to begin with and why I should have resisted posting.

2. I am now curious. Are you a medical professional/psychologist/etc?

I'm not a professional, but I was on the track for it. Almost got my first degree in it. As for what happened: That's something I don't discuss.

Despite some shots across each other's bow in this thread, I believe we agree more than we disagree on this issue.

I believe whole-heartedly in the right to die with dignity and to assisted suicide.

I also believe it is possible to have a wholly rational desire to end one's life.

But, because I don't just reject out-of-hand the studies done by experts on the matter, I believe that a very high percentage of suicides are symptoms of mental illness and/or substance abuse disorders. Thus, I won't sign on to "well, whatever you want is prima facie acceptable." We should look to help those considering suicide -- for whatever reason -- and see if their lives can be improved to a point that they desire to live.
As far as I'm concerned, we can consider ourselves in general agreement.

No you said 'I think'. That is what I was commenting on. You think, rather than you know. which is fine, because I think it is not easy at all. I don't know this, it is just what I think.

Why I think this, is precisly that after realising all of the consequences of taking your own life, then to still go ahead and do it, must be very, very hard.

It must take a strong mind to take such an action. Not only the strenght of will to put that gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, but to do so having an understanding of the difficulties that it will bring to those you leave behind.

No mate, I don't think that is an easy thing to do at all.

It may not be an easy thing to do if they are taking those into consideration, but what I am saying is that it is the easy way out of your problems instead of dealing with them or trying to solve them you quit, that is what I mean be the easy way out.

It may not be an easy thing to do if they are taking those into consideration, but what I am saying is that it is the easy way out of your problems instead of dealing with them or trying to solve them you quit, that is what I mean be the easy way out.

Yeah I know what you mean, but still I do not belive it to be easy at all. You mean of course giving up and not fighting to make your problems go away, is easyeir than fighting.

My argument is that the decision to giveup is one that is not taken lightly, I would assume that much thought and soul searching goes into it. Also the act of killing yourself, the actual act of doing it, must be one of the hardest things to begin, to make your finger pull that trigger, or to make the leap from the chair or whatever.

So to my mind it is not the easy way at all.

People often say this, giving up is the easy way, I don't buy it. Watching your kids leave the home to start out on their own, is giving up, it is not easy.

Letting your beloved go after you have been caught cheating, is giving up, it is not easy.

Pulling out of that card game befroe you loose anymoe money is giving up, it too is not easy.

Because you give in, you give up, you put up the hands and procliam 'please no more', that does not automaticaly make it an easy thing to do, nor the easy way.

Yeah I know what you mean, but still I do not belive it to be easy at all. You mean of course giving up and not fighting to make your problems go away, is easyeir than fighting.

My argument is that the decision to giveup is one that is not taken lightly, I would assume that much thought and soul searching goes into it. Also the act of killing yourself, the actual act of doing it, must be one of the hardest things to begin, to make your finger pull that trigger, or to make the leap from the chair or whatever.

So to my mind it is not the easy way at all.

People often say this, giving up is the easy way, I don't buy it. Watching your kids leave the home to start out on their own, is giving up, it is not easy.

Letting your beloved go after you have been caught cheating, is giving up, it is not easy.

Pulling out of that card game befroe you loose anymoe money is giving up, it too is not easy.

Because you give in, you give up, you put up the hands and procliam 'please no more', that does not automaticaly make it an easy thing to do, nor the easy way.

Well I don;t know, I do know committing the act would not be easy and even thinking about it and weighing it up isn't easy. But as for tan easy way out I tend to lean toward shtat it is but I don't know, such as I don't know if it is the right thing to do and should be allowed.

But how is watching your kids leave home and starting up on their own the same thing?

if a person has succeeded in killing themselves, precisely how does anyone propose to punish them for having done so?

of course a person who makes a big show of threatining to kill themselves, as a form of emotional blackmail, well, that's kind of being an idiot, whether they succeed or fail.

and i think that's probably the problem here, not those who have quietly, for whatever their own reasons might have been, succeeded in succeeding from this current form of life.

i think its inconsiderate and unsanitary to leave the body one formerly occupied laying arround to annoy and imparel with disease those still living, and having to deal with it, but what are you going to do? bring them back to life and slap them?

i think the terminally ill have something of a right to die of their own hand, but otherwise, you know unless facing some sort of extreme tyranny or genocide, killing yourself is usually pretty dumb.

if people manage to kill themselves without making problems for each other by doing so, then its absolutely their own life and their own bussiness, and thank you for making a little more room for the rest of us.

and we, or i, hope you will have found greater happiness, wherever you may have taken your awairness, or will when and if, it wakes up in your next life, or the one after that, and so on.

Well I don;t know, I do know committing the act would not be easy and even thinking about it and weighing it up isn't easy. But as for tan easy way out I tend to lean toward shtat it is but I don't know, such as I don't know if it is the right thing to do and should be allowed.

But how is watching your kids leave home and starting up on their own the same thing?

Well of course they are not the same at all. Ohhh ohh wait a minute but that was not the point was it.

The point was that 'giving in' is not automaticaly the 'easy way'. Nope sometimes it's the hardest way.

Well of course they are not the same at all. Ohhh ohh wait a minute but that was not the point was it.

The point was that 'giving in' is not automaticaly the 'easy way'. Nope sometimes it's the hardest way.

Wait a minute I wasn't saying it was the point, but I would like to know how how your children leaving home is giving in?

I'd like to just add by way of clarification, in case it's needed, that I agree with this caveat 100%. I was arguing with Hydesland because, based on what he posted, I felt he was arguing from the position of societal prejudice which holds suicide to be in and of itself an irrational act and, thus, proof of irrationality and/or mental illness and/or legal incompetency. I know he said otherwise, but I still felt that despite his disclaimers, his argument was dependent on that assumption. So I hounded him about how MUCH discouragement -- or caution or examination or whatever -- he would want before accepting that someone was deciding to die based on a rational thought process, which other people would be wrong to interfere with.

I think that, as long as the "suicide is inherently irrational" assumption is prevalent in society, we will not reach a point where people can claim and exercise a right to die the way they want, just as they claim the right to live the way they want.

My hope would be that, if we can get free of that assumption, we will perhaps be able to focus more clearly on whether a person is contemplating suicide rationally or irrationally and intervene where it is needed and not intervene where it is not appropriate.

A point: we don't really claim the right to live the way we want. I think, for instance, your right to be an irredeemable asshole to everyone you meet is something that you, at best, technically have, but you would never legitimately exercise. Partly this is because you need to live in society, but also because I think men are naturally sympathetic enough to want human connection: no man naturally wants to see others offended or hurt by his actions.

But that is, ultimately, just what suicide is. It's the ultimate disconnection from our inclination to be something greater than ourselves and to care for what happens to our fellow man. I think it's a bit foolish to split your notion of rights too far from the standard of care reasonable men should be expected to uphold for their family and friends. Part of that is to refrain from suicide even if seems like a decent thing to do.

The thing is, I think looking at rights like this still affords you what you want. It's just that sometimes our duty to care is superseded by some other consideration: I might very well endanger you by speeding if I'm trying to get a dying daughter to the hospital, and no one would bat an eye at the moral implications of what I've done. Similarly, if continuing on is only an agony to me and to my family by extension, and I have a means of dying with some measure of dignity, I think our intuitions are that this seems a reasonable superseding of the standard duty to care (or perhaps better, it's a case where the duty to care implies something other than the normal heuristic), and I think our intuitions are correct.

Wait a minute I wasn't saying it was the point, but I would like to know how how your children leaving home is giving in?

You mean you can't see that?

You mean that you don't think that letting go of your children is giving in?

Very Catch 22 really - to be responsible for making a decision about ending your life you should be of sound mind - but if you are contemplating suicide you aren't.

*snip*

The thing is, I think looking at rights like this still affords you what you want. It's just that sometimes our duty to care is superseded by some other consideration: I might very well endanger you by speeding if I'm trying to get a dying daughter to the hospital, and no one would bat an eye at the moral implications of what I've done.

Um. Actually, I might "bat an eyelid" at that.

An ambulance endangers other road users, but in a calculated and professional way. Sirens, trained drivers, a widely recognized social benefit of ambulances. Without that, you are just some nutter driving too fast ... and perhaps even a judge would not agree with your (parental, emotionally invested) judgement of the medical need to take such a risk.

You take a legal risk, as well as a physical one. Consider the eyelid "batted."

(Still reading thread. Page 3 of 8. This just a "hi.")

Very Catch 22 really - to be responsible for making a decision about ending your life you should be of sound mind - but if you are contemplating suicide you aren't.

See, this is where you and I disagree. You can be contemplating ending your life and be of perfectly sound mind.

However, let is get a little more specific. Where do we draw the line at "sound mind"? A person who thinks he is a piano is obviously of sound mind, but what about a person who is depressed? What about a person who does things that you don't agree with - I.E. skydiving, bungee jumping, etc - is he of sound mind?

It is my contention that a person is of sound mind as long as they have their feet in reality and can reason and discuss intelligent things rationally. Simply because they are considering suicide does not place them outside of that realm.

It's, of course, a basic human right. But - murdering is illegal, why should self-murdering be? A government should help solving people's problems, and by legalising suicide it's saying: " Well, if you have problems, we won't help you, commit a suicide and solve yor problems yourself."

It's, of course, a basic human right. But - murdering is illegal, why should self-murdering be? A government should help solving people's problems, and by legalising suicide it's saying: " Well, if you have problems, we won't help you, commit a suicide and solve yor problems yourself."

Now you appear to be brand new, so I'll take it easy for while.:D

Murder can be defined as the sensles killing of one human by another. So for example if you attacked me and I had cause to fear for my life I coould in self defense kill you and perhaps not be tried for murder.

In the same way if I choose to kill myself because I only have 3 months of a pain filled life to live, there could be an argument made that I have not commited murder.

A goverment shoud help it's citersens yes(good on ya you lil socialist you) but if nobody has the right to kill you, then surly nobody has the right to stop you killing yourself.

Why would you want goverment involved in such a personal choice? I mean would you be happy to let goverment choose your spouse, or tell you how many kids you will be having?

See, this is where you and I disagree. You can be contemplating ending your life and be of perfectly sound mind.

However, let is get a little more specific. Where do we draw the line at "sound mind"? A person who thinks he is a piano is obviously of sound mind, but what about a person who is depressed? What about a person who does things that you don't agree with - I.E. skydiving, bungee jumping, etc - is he of sound mind?

It is my contention that a person is of sound mind as long as they have their feet in reality and can reason and discuss intelligent things rationally. Simply because they are considering suicide does not place them outside of that realm.

I think someone with a terminal illness may well make a decision to commit suicide and be of sound mind. Someone who is depressed, by definition is not. Someone who thinks they are a piano are doing grand.

A point: we don't really claim the right to live the way we want. I think, for instance, your right to be an irredeemable asshole to everyone you meet is something that you, at best, technically have, but you would never legitimately exercise. Partly this is because you need to live in society, but also because I think men are naturally sympathetic enough to want human connection: no man naturally wants to see others offended or hurt by his actions.

But that is, ultimately, just what suicide is. It's the ultimate disconnection from our inclination to be something greater than ourselves and to care for what happens to our fellow man. I think it's a bit foolish to split your notion of rights too far from the standard of care reasonable men should be expected to uphold for their family and friends. Part of that is to refrain from suicide even if seems like a decent thing to do.

The thing is, I think looking at rights like this still affords you what you want. It's just that sometimes our duty to care is superseded by some other consideration: I might very well endanger you by speeding if I'm trying to get a dying daughter to the hospital, and no one would bat an eye at the moral implications of what I've done. Similarly, if continuing on is only an agony to me and to my family by extension, and I have a means of dying with some measure of dignity, I think our intuitions are that this seems a reasonable superseding of the standard duty to care (or perhaps better, it's a case where the duty to care implies something other than the normal heuristic), and I think our intuitions are correct.
Those are very noble sentiments and very well written, but in the end, after thinking about it a while, I find them meaningless.

Death is inevitable. No living being has any choice but to do it, eventually. To attach moral implications to a person deciding to do it sooner rather than later seems...well, to be blunt, I see it as foolish. To say that a person dying is the wrong thing to do seems as ridiculous to me as saying that a person breathing is the right thing to do.

And as I think of it further, I also find your views of rights versus the right-thing-to-do to be presumptuous. Who are you (rhetorical) to tell others what their moral obligations are? Who are you (rhetorical) to determine what the natural impulses of other people should be?

Nobody is born under any obligation to anyone else. The fact of my existence does not obligate me to exist -- not for anyone's sake, even my own. The care for others you describe is, ultimately, a choice -- a choice that all individuals are free to make -- MUST be free to make, or else the choice becomes meaningless, even worthless.

And ulitimately, regardless of whether any given person cares about others or not, there are some things which belong to each of us and each of us alone. There are things which a person can never share with another person, and which each person must deal with alone, within themselves, and chief among those things are the fundamental experiences of our own lives and our own deaths. And in the real world, such profoundly personal and solitary issues do not wait for social convenience to demand our attention. They come up when they come up, and they trump all other matters on the agenda, even if it is inconvenient to others.

My death is mine, and I will not answer to you for it, or for any decisions I make regarding it. If I choose to die, or if I choose not to die in any given circumstance, is, fundamentally, ultimately, none of your damned business. And when it comes to something as monumental and as personal as me leaving this world, if you come to me complaining that I'm going to early to suit you, I think I would be within my rights to tell you that you are out of line.

Because no matter how much you might not like it -- no matter how much I might not like it -- I have to be in charge of me more than I can be of service to you.

No. If you consider that human dignity is an absolute value then even nobody, even the person himself cannot decide wheter he still posseses this dignity or not. This is why nobody has the right to suicide.

Very Catch 22 really - to be responsible for making a decision about ending your life you should be of sound mind - but if you are contemplating suicide you aren't.
That sums up the societal fiction I was talking about.

I think someone with a terminal illness may well make a decision to commit suicide and be of sound mind. Someone who is depressed, by definition is not. Someone who thinks they are a piano are doing grand.

Very punny. :p

Well that brings us back to the definition of depression. I thankfully have www.dictionary.com really handy. This is, by the way, the fifth definition - the others mostly have to do with an area of land being lower than the land around it:

Psychiatry. a condition of general emotional dejection and withdrawal; sadness greater and more prolonged than that warranted by any objective reason. Compare clinical depression.

Ok, so, fair enough - depression, as diagnosed, is an unreasonable state of mind. However, it's often diagnosed in cases where it is, in fact, reasonable. For instance, a person who just lost his wife in a car wreck is reasonably sad. Yet, if this sadness persists more than a couple weeks (which it most definitely should) the person is diagnosed with depression, or perhaps PTSD.

Does he have depression though? Is his sadness unreasonable? Not at all (in my mind). We can't say for sure that a particular "down" person is being unreasonable. I still submit that just because a person commits suicide does not make him depressed. He (or she) may have simply decided in a very logical and rational way that they are done with life - and it is not our place to deny them that.

I think someone with a terminal illness may well make a decision to commit suicide and be of sound mind. Someone who is depressed, by definition is not. Someone who thinks they are a piano are doing grand.

No not really, somebody who is deppressed it not automaticlay not of sound mind. Would you say that you are not of sound mind each and everytime you react in anger?

No. If you consider that human dignity is an absolute value then even nobody, even the person himself cannot decide wheter he still posseses this dignity or not. This is why nobody has the right to suicide.

Heh and how would you measure such a thing as human dignity?

Live a little life. When it's done, you die.

Now, I go back to living a little life, in spring-time.

Judge and Jury, go easy on my murderer. Nearly half my will was done.

Death is inevitable. No living being has any choice but to do it, eventually. To attach moral implications to a person deciding to do it sooner rather than later seems...well, to be blunt, I see it as foolish. To say that a person dying is the wrong thing to do seems a ridiculous to me as saying that a person breathing is the right thing to do.
Death is indeed inevitable, but there's a big difference, obviously, between 'choosing' to die of natural causes at 85 and choosing to commit suicide at 25.

You say that you find the idea of moral implications being attached to a person committing suicide foolish, but surely you recognise that, say, a mother with a dependent child or the guardian of a severely disabled person committing suicide has moral implications? (Note that I'm saying moral implications; I'm not weighing in on whether it's right or wrong, but there are certainly moral implications from such acts.) Moreover, though this is a lesser issue, the manner of the suicide matters. Committing suicide in the presence of (certain) people certainly has moral implications.

On a different tack, think of the person who commits suicide while travelling in a moving car, or to take the example further, the suicide bomber. Again, obvious moral implications.

If I choose to die, or if I choose not to die in any given circumstance, is, fundamentally, ultimately, none of your damned business. And when it comes to something as monumental and as personal as me leaving this world, if you come to me whining that I'm going to early to suit you, I think I would be within my rights to tell you that you are out of line.
If the manner of your passing is going to have moral implications (as it can) on Xenophobialand, or some other person, I think they would well be in line to bring up these issues. I agree that one's death is for the most part an issue for the individual in question, but we can't pretend our lives, and our deaths, are contained in a vacuum.

I think someone with a terminal illness may well make a decision to commit suicide and be of sound mind. Someone who is depressed, by definition is not. Someone who thinks they are a piano are doing grand.
That's not necessarily true. There are degrees of depression. People with depression may only sometimes be not rational, while at other times they are fully rational and able to make decisions controlling their own lives. A person is not automatically declared incompetent to control their own life just because they are diagnosed with depression. In the case of mental illness or disorders, the issue of suicide is a problem because it is hard to know if the person is deciding rationally to escape their suffering by death, or acting impulsively under the influence of their illness.

On the other hand, consider non-clinical depression that arises out of a situation. It has happened that terminally ill people have been institutionalized to stop them committing suicide on the grounds that they are suffering depression. But no shit, they're depressed -- they're dying slowly in horrible pain. That tends to be kind of a drag. Is their depressed mood an irrational state of mind? I think not.

A person who impulsively tries to kill themselves in a hysterical fit because their lover has dumped them is probably not thinking clearly. A person who has been diagnosed with Altzheimer's or is losing the battle with cancer, on the other hand -- or even a person who has lived for decades without ever knowing a happy moment in life -- I think probably has a basis for making a rational decision about when it is time for them to die.

Death is indeed inevitable, but there's a big difference, obviously, between 'choosing' to die of natural causes at 85 and choosing to commit suicide at 25.

I disagree, but I will comment more below.

You say that you find the idea of moral implications being attached to a person committing suicide foolish, but surely you recognise that, say, a mother with a dependent child or the guardian of a severely disabled person committing suicide has moral implications? (Note that I'm saying moral implications; I'm not weighing in on whether it's right or wrong, but there are certainly moral implications from such acts.) Moreover, though this is a lesser issue, the manner of the suicide matters. Committing suicide in the presence of (certain) people certainly has moral implications.

Granted, a person on whom a minor or disabled person is dependent has far more to weigh when contemplating suicide. However, that does not automatically make it wrong. It just makes it harder for them to make that choice.

Also, as far as committing suicide in the presence of certain people, this is why i recommend that suicide be a recognized legal medical avenue. Not only do you get rid of the mess, but the person's body can be parted out and used to aid those who still wish to live.

On a different tack, think of the person who commits suicide while travelling in a moving car, or to take the example further, the suicide bomber. Again, obvious moral implications.

This is endangering the life of others (deliberately or not) in the act of suicide, which is a completely different topic.

If the manner of your passing is going to have moral implications (as it can) on Xenophobialand, or some other person, I think they would well be in line to bring up these issues. I agree that one's death is for the most part an issue for the individual in question, but we can't pretend our lives, and our deaths, are contained in a vacuum.

All things which have to be weighed and considered, but do not necessarily automatically mean prevention.

A person who impulsively tries to kill themselves in a hysterical fit because their lover has dumped them is probably not thinking clearly. A person who has been diagnosed with Altzheimer's or is losing the battle with cancer, on the other hand -- or even a person who has lived for decades without ever knowing a happy moment in life -- I think probably has a basis for making a rational decision about when it is time for them to die.
I'd quite agree, and this is why I support Mary Warnock's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/12/schools.education) position of arguing for the Assisted Suicide Bill here in the UK, and her call for research into whether there is a certain time-frame of mental competency when an individual suffering from the onsets of senility can have a discussion with professionals and family about the prospect of assisted suicide.



Granted, a person on whom a minor or disabled person is dependent has far more to weigh when contemplating suicide. However, that does not automatically make it wrong. It just makes it harder for them to make that choice.
I'm not saying it is necessarily wrong, just that it obviously has moral implications.

Death is indeed inevitable, but there's a big difference, obviously, between 'choosing' to die of natural causes at 85 and choosing to commit suicide at 25.
Why?

You say that you find the idea of moral implications being attached to a person committing suicide foolish, but surely you recognise that, say, a mother with a dependent child or the guardian of a severely disabled person committing suicide has moral implications?
No, I don't. I see no more real damage being done to the person left behind than if the caregiver died suddenly from an accident or natural cause. And I include the emotional impact of feelings of abandonment and guilt in that, too.

(Note that I'm saying moral implications; I'm not weighing in on whether it's right or wrong, but there are certainly moral implications from such acts.) Moreover, though this is a lesser issue, the manner of the suicide matters. Committing suicide in the presence of (certain) people certainly has moral implications.
How? In what way? What kind of moral implications?

On a different tack, think of the person who commits suicide while travelling in a moving car, or to take the example further, the suicide bomber. Again, obvious moral implications.
You are conflating issues here. The moral issues of committing suicide in a way that endangers others is not attached to the dying but to the doing. It is a moral indictment of the person, not of suicide.

If the manner of your passing is going to have moral implications (as it can) on Xenophobialand, or some other person, I think they would well be in line to bring up these issues. I agree that one's death is for the most part an issue for the individual in question, but we can't pretend our lives, and our deaths, are contained in a vacuum.
I disagree with your foundational assertion that a person's death can have moral implications, therefore, I disagree with all conclusions/assertions stemming from that.

No. If you consider that human dignity is an absolute value then even nobody, even the person himself cannot decide wheter he still posseses this dignity or not. This is why nobody has the right to suicide.

Sorry, what?

No. If you consider that human dignity is an absolute value then even nobody, even the person himself cannot decide whether he still possesses this dignity or not. This is why nobody has the right to suicide.

I got lost on this one too. I also had to correct the spelling because Firefox told me to.

No not really, somebody who is deppressed it not automaticlay not of sound mind. Would you say that you are not of sound mind each and everytime you react in anger?

You haven't seen me when I am angry...

It is a question of degree - people who are mildly depressed make rational decisions, but then they are not likely to want to kill themselves. Clinical depression really does have an enormous effect on how you view things, make judgements etc..

Why?
Suicide is a genuine choice, passing away in the night isn't.

No, I don't. I see no more real damage being done to the person left behind than if the caregiver died suddenly from an accident or natural cause. And I include the emotional impact of feelings of abandonment and guilt in that, too.
This 'emotional impact' has resulted from a choice, not an accident. Therefore, there are moral implications to it. Once again, I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong to commit suicide if persons are dependent on you, but merely that there are moral implications for such a choice.

How? In what way? What kind of moral implications?
Implications such as whether it's morally right to have someone (especially a child or mentally disabled person) witness an event that is likely to be horrific and/or psychologically disturbing.

You are conflating issues here
As I said, '"on a different tack"...

It is a question of degree - people who are mildly depressed make rational decisions, but then they are not likely to want to kill themselves. Clinical depression really does have an enormous effect on how you view things, make judgments etc..

Two points:

But some do. Thus, where do you draw the line at when a person becomes irrational?

If we're going to draw a line at an irrational person, we should disallow them from having sex, holding any kind of job except one where there is no possible way of hurting someone (when you find one of those, let me know), driving a car, or living on their own because, if they're suffering clinical depression, they might make a bad decision.

And, if we draw the line that far, as I do, they should be a mental institution once they cross it. If you're not in a mental institution and/or guarded by a ward, obviously, you must have some ability to make rational decisions.

Two points:

But some do. Thus, where do you draw the line at when a person becomes irrational?

If we're going to draw a line at an irrational person, we should disallow them from having sex, holding any kind of job except one where there is no possible way of hurting someone (when you find one of those, let me know), driving a car, or living on their own because, if they're suffering clinical depression, they might make a bad decision.

And, if we draw the line that far, as I do, they should be a mental institution once they cross it. If you're not in a mental institution and/or guarded by a ward, obviously, you must have some ability to make rational decisions.

I agree with you, there is a line to be drawn where you stop someone for their own good to give them time to reconsider. The problem is just where to draw that line.

I agree with you, there is a line to be drawn where you stop someone for their own good to give them time to reconsider. The problem is just where to draw that line.

By the time they get to that point, they should be delusional (I.E. I'm Big Bird, exception for the actual Big Bird) or so mentally incapacitated they are incapable of living on their own.

Sorry, was watching the Sesame Street version of "The Internet is for Porn"

Suicide is a genuine choice, passing away in the night isn't.
But they both have the same result.

This 'emotional impact' has resulted from a choice, not an accident. Therefore, there are moral implications to it. Once again, I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong to commit suicide if persons are dependent on you, but merely that there are moral implications for such a choice.
But they both have the same result.

Implications such as whether it's morally right to have someone (especially a child or mentally disabled person) witness an event that is likely to be horrific and/or psychologically disturbing.
Is it morally right for someone to witness someone they love and depend on get killed in a car accident? Or lie dying of cancer in a hospital? Or get swept away by a flood, fire, tornado, etc? Or drop dead suddenly on the kitchen floor of a stroke or aneurism or heart attack at a young age?

I'm sorry, but I just do not see the added twist of choice to an unexpected and unwanted death to be all that influential in calculating the impact of the death.

And in any event, how many suicides kill themselves in front of other people? Are you reduced to focusing on an extremely rare and unlikely event in order to press your argument concerning a general moral implication that is applicable to suicide in general?

As I said, '"on a different tack"...
Yes, and that different tack was a bad one because it conflated issues.

But they both have the same result.
Manslaughter, murder and death resulting from a freak accident may all have the same result, but certainly have different moral implications. As does accidentally crashing a plane into a building or deliberately flying into said building, accidentally hitting your friend in the face or punching him deliberately, etc.

Concious choice vs. accidental occurrence has major differences, especially morally.

And in any event, how many suicides kill themselves in front of other people? Are you reduced to focusing on an extremely rare and unlikely event in order to press your argument concerning a general moral implication that is applicable to suicide in general?
No, I'm pointing out how your assertion that it's "foolish" to assign moral implications to the act of suicide is a weak one, while furthermore answering your question about what moral implications suicide in front of a witness has.

You mean you can't see that?

You mean that you don't think that letting go of your children is giving in?

I suppose I can see it a bit if I am honest.

Manslaughter, murder and death resulting from a freak accident may all have the same result, but certainly have different moral implications. As does accidentally crashing a plane into a building or deliberately flying into said building, accidentally hitting your friend in the face or punching him deliberately, etc.

Concious choice vs. accidental occurrence has major differences, especially morally.


No, I'm pointing out how your assertion that it's "foolish" to assign moral implications to the act of suicide is a weak one, while furthermore answering your question about what moral implications suicide in front of a witness has.
You can only show my assertion is weak by showing that there really is a moral implication to a person's manner of death, and to my mind you have not done so.

This is because you continue to conflate the issue of a living person's intent with the fact of the event of a death.

The killer's intent is what defines murder as an immoral act. Not the fact of the dead body that results from it. That is why the accidental killing of a person, or the deliberate but justified killing of a person, do not carry the same moral implication as murder.

It is also why it is still a crime to try to kill someone or conspire to kill someone, even if one does not succeed in doing it. The fact of the death is not what makes the difference.

It is the intent of the one who does the action that makes the action moral or immoral.

By itself, death, by whatever cause, is morally neutral.

Also, your argument seems to be that a person's death has a moral implication because of the effect it has on others, and you make a connection between that and the intent of the person who has died. But I point out that the effect of a death will likely be the same on the bereaved regardless of the intent of the one who is dead.

Someone you love and need dies suddenly. The trauma and loss to you will likely be the same regardless of whether they killed themselves, were killed by someone else, or died by accident or natural cause. So, if the moral implication of dying is tied to the effect on one's survivors, does that make every death morally questionable? Obviously, that would be ridiculous.

To me, this is an insurmountable flaw in your argument. To my mind, your argument boils down to this: There are moral implications to choosing to die because it would be bad for me if someone close to me died while I needed them. Yeah, there might be a moral implication to that, but not the one you are arguing.

I suppose I can see it a bit if I am honest.

Fuck me honesty.... here? Why I...I..... I feel a little faint!:D

Fuck me honesty.... here? Why I...I..... I feel a little faint!:D

lol, well I can see it but their are also times when your children leaving the house is not always giving in.

No not really, somebody who is deppressed it not automaticlay not of sound mind. Would you say that you are not of sound mind each and everytime you react in anger?

You really need to learn to make a distinction between feeling "depressed" and having clinical depression.

That is not to say one is not "of sound mind" (whatever that means) just because one suffers from clinical depression, but it does mean that someone suffering from clinical depression is likely to feel suicidal without a rational basis for those feelings.

The killer's intent is what defines murder as an immoral act. Not the fact of the dead body that results from it.
And the intent of the person committing suicide is what defines it as a moral, immoral or morally neutral act. Not the fact of the dead body that results from it.

If, for example, someone intended to commit suicide to save someone else (if we are going to count self-sacrifice as suicide), I'd call that a moral act. If, however, someone intended to commit suicide as a way to emotionally hurt another person (extreme, I admit, but possible), then I see no problem with calling the act immoral. You're right in the sense that I imagine most suicides are morally neutral (along with death itself), at least from the position of the suicidee.

This adequately demonstrates how the act of suicide can have moral implications.

Someone you love and need dies suddenly. The trauma and loss to you will likely be the same regardless of whether they killed themselves, were killed by someone else, or died by accident or natural cause.
On the contrary, the intent of the person who has died matters a great deal. The effect to me of someone dying in an accident and someone committing suicide are hugely different. I'd 'rather' a friend die in an accident than commit suicide (unless that suicide was due to my friend being in unbearable and incurable pain), and 'rather' again they died in an accident than be murdered. The trauma of knowing someone committed suicide, along with the possibility that I could perhaps have helped them (again, with the above euthanasia caveat), would be much worse than having a friend die in an unstoppable accident.

I'm not saying this shows there's moral implications to a suicide, but it's an important point to make.

To my mind, your argument boils down to this: There are moral implications to choosing to die because it would be bad for me if someone close to me died while I needed them. Yeah, there might be a moral implication to that, but not the one you are arguing.
I don't know what you mean by the 'one' I am arguing; all I am arguing is that the act of suicide can have moral implications.

I've shown how above.

I dont think it s

Unless a person is not of sound mind, I wholeheartedly believe it is within that person's right to end his or her own life.

And the intent of the person committing suicide is what defines it as a moral, immoral or morally neutral act. Not the fact of the dead body that results from it.

If, for example, someone intended to commit suicide to save someone else (if we are going to count self-sacrifice as suicide), I'd call that a moral act. If, however, someone intended to commit suicide as a way to emotionally hurt another person (extreme, I admit, but possible), then I see no problem with calling the act immoral. You're right in the sense that I imagine most suicides are morally neutral (along with death itself), at least from the position of the suicidee.

This adequately demonstrates how the act of suicide can have moral implications.


On the contrary, the intent of the person who has died matters a great deal. The effect to me of someone dying in an accident and someone committing suicide are hugely different. I'd 'rather' a friend die in an accident than commit suicide (unless that suicide was due to my friend being in unbearable and incurable pain), and 'rather' again they died in an accident than be murdered. The trauma of knowing someone committed suicide, along with the possibility that I could perhaps have helped them (again, with the above euthanasia caveat), would be much worse than having a friend die in an unstoppable accident.

I'm not saying this shows there's moral implications to a suicide, but it's an important point to make.


I don't know what you mean by the 'one' I am arguing; all I am arguing is that the act of suicide can have moral implications.

I've shown how above.
No, what you have shown is that human intentions have moral implications. Those intentions are not necessarily tied to suicide more than any other action, however.

If a person does something to help someone, that can be called a moral action. If a person does something to hurt someone, that can be called an immoral action.

Those judgments can be applied to anything the person does with those intentions, not just suicide. It could just as easily be lying or stealing or taking a job or quitting a job or moving in or out of a house, or just about anything, really.

You have shown us much about human intention, but you have shown us nothing about suicide itself, because the morality/immorality is not dependent on the action being suicide.

On the contrary, the intent of the person who has died matters a great deal. The effect to me of someone dying in an accident and someone committing suicide are hugely different. I'd 'rather' a friend die in an accident than commit suicide (unless that suicide was due to my friend being in unbearable and incurable pain), and 'rather' again they died in an accident than be murdered. The trauma of knowing someone committed suicide, along with the possibility that I could perhaps have helped them (again, with the above euthanasia caveat), would be much worse than having a friend die in an unstoppable accident.

I'm not saying this shows there's moral implications to a suicide, but it's an important point to make.


I don't know what you mean by the 'one' I am arguing; all I am arguing is that the act of suicide can have moral implications.

I've shown how above.
And in reference specifically to the above, your argument about the effect of a person's death on others is, in my opinion, an essentially selfish one. You seem to be saying that a person needs to take your feelings into account when judging their own life/death choices. Why? In specific reference to whether they live or die, why should your feelings about it carry more weight their own -- enough weight to let you claim that the decision has moral implications?

This is what I meant when I remarked that there might be a moral implication to your argument but not the one you were arguing. I was suggesting that, if there is a question about morality here, it would be the morality of expecting others to live for your sake, regardless of what they are going through.

Also, from everything I have ever read or personally witnessed, the feelings of shock, abandonment, guilt, uncertainty, resentment, etc, that come to people when someone close to them commits suicide, also come when someone close to them dies suddenly, especially at a young age, from other causes as well.

You may be imagining this from the perspective of how you would rather have your friends die, but I am imaginging it from the perspective of the general way people tend to react to sudden death.

suicide is a great!!!!!

Everyone should try it.

When is it acceptable?

Should people have the right to take their life whenever they want?
\/ This \/
Yes, yes they should. Whos life is it if not theirs?

There should be no laws or persecution against people who try to kill themselves, but we should still try to stop people from killing themselves. There is a good chance they will change their mind some day. I know a few people who tried to kill themselves and they are pretty happy today.

No, what you have shown is that human intentions have moral implications. Those intentions are not necessarily tied to suicide more than any other action, however.
The intentions and the act are linked. Acting and intending is different morally, when discussing an action with possible moral value, than acting without intention (or, perhaps more accurately, having one's actions culminate in unintended consequences), and different again from intending yet not acting. We link out intentions and our actions, indeed we have to if we are to honestly evaluate our moral character. This is the whole point; the intent of the person committing suicide is a big factor in deciding whether the suicide had moral implications.

If a person does something to help someone, that can be called a moral action.
Such as when one commits suicide to save another. The act's obviously important here; intending to save someone's life but not acting to do so has different (moral) implications than intending and acting to save someone's life. Thus the act of, and intent to commit, suicide can be described in some situations as morally good.

If a person does something to hurt someone, that can be called an immoral action.
Such as when one commits suicide to hurt another. Again, the act's obviously important here; intending to hurt someone but not acting to do so has different (moral) implications than intending and acting to hurt someone. Thus the act of, and intent to commit, suicide can be described as morally bad.

Thus suicide can have moral implications; suicide is not always a morally neutral act.

And in reference specifically to the above, your argument about the effect of a person's death on others is, in my opinion, an essentially selfish one. You seem to be saying that a person needs to take your feelings into account when judging their own life/death choices. Why?
I'm not saying this in what you quoted. I'm saying you're incorrect when you state that the effect/trauma of someone's death is the same whether they've died in an accident, committed suicide, or been murdered.

On a more general note, I don't feel it's unreasonable to take other's feelings into account when deciding what actions to take in life. They shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of one's deliberation, but they are in some way important.

Also, from everything I have ever read or personally witnessed, the feelings of shock, abandonment, guilt, uncertainty, resentment, etc, that come to people when someone close to them commits suicide, also come when someone close to them dies suddenly, especially at a young age, from other causes as well.

You may be imagining this from the perspective of how you would rather have your friends die, but I am imaginging it from the perspective of the general way people tend to react to sudden death.
I'm telling it from the perspective of someone who's known a friend who died in an accident, a friend who committed suicide and family members who've died of living too long. The manner, and (if any) intent, of death played a large role in how myself and my family/friends reacted. Anecdotal experience, sure, but I'd wager many people also feel the same.

The intentions and the act are linked. Acting and intending is different morally, when discussing an action with possible moral value, than acting without intention (or, perhaps more accurately, having one's actions culminate in unintended consequences), and different again from intending yet not acting. We link out intentions and our actions, indeed we have to if we are to honestly evaluate our moral character. This is the whole point; the intent of the person committing suicide is a big factor in deciding whether the suicide had moral implications.


Such as when one commits suicide to save another. The act's obviously important here; intending to save someone's life but not acting to do so has different (moral) implications than intending and acting to save someone's life. Thus the act of, and intent to commit, suicide can be described in some situations as morally good.


Such as when one commits suicide to hurt another. Again, the act's obviously important here; intending to hurt someone but not acting to do so has different (moral) implications than intending and acting to hurt someone. Thus the act of, and intent to commit, suicide can be described as morally bad.

Thus suicide can have moral implications; suicide is not always a morally neutral act.


I'm not saying this in what you quoted. I'm saying you're incorrect when you state that the effect/trauma of someone's death is the same whether they've died in an accident, committed suicide, or been murdered.

On a more general note, I don't feel it's unreasonable to take other's feelings into account when deciding what actions to take in life. They shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of one's deliberation, but they are in some way important.


I'm telling it from the perspective of someone who's known a friend who died in an accident, a friend who committed suicide and family members who've died of living too long. The manner, and (if any) intent, of death played a large role in how myself and my family/friends reacted. Anecdotal experience, sure, but I'd wager many people also feel the same.
I'm sorry, Chumbly, but I'm still seeing nothing but "it hurts my feelings and that makes it an immoral action."

I realize that's very cold of me, but that's how I see it.

And I'm further sorry that I have to reject your argument because of that. "It made me feel bad" =/= immoral. Likewise, "I don't feel it's unreasonable to take other's feelings into account..." =/= a moral imperative.

I am sorry, but after all this talk, I simply do not agree that there is any moral implication in the manner by which a person dies. Also, I still think you are putting your focus on the wrong part of the event when you declare a moral implication. I reject your connection of intent to result for the reasons I explained in my previous posts. I do not believe your argument successfully counters mine, therefore, it does not change my opinion. You presented your argument very well, but I'm just not buying it.

I'm sorry, Chumbly, but I'm still seeing nothing but "it hurts my feelings and that makes it an immoral action."
What about, in the case of the person committing suicide to save another's life, "it saved the life of another, at the expense of the individual, and that makes it a moral action (or at least morally commendable)"?

Could you state your case as to why the person altruistically sacrificing their life to save another isn't committing a morally good (or morally praiseworthy) act, or why the person committing suicide to deliberately inflict suffering onto another isn't committing a morally bad (or morally lamentable) act? I can't see a clear rebuttal in your previous posts.

"It made me feel bad" =/= immoral.
I quite agree, I wasn't saying otherwise.

Likewise, "I don't feel it's unreasonable to take other's feelings into account..." =/= a moral imperative.
Again, I'm not saying this, I'm merely stating (on a wider note than our debate on suicide) that I think it's best to take the feelings of others into account when deciding on one's actions.

What about, in the case of the person committing suicide to save another's life, "it saved the life of another, at the expense of the individual, and that makes it a moral action (or at least morally commendable)"?

Could you state your case as to why the person altruistically sacrificing their life to save another isn't committing a morally good (or morally praiseworthy) act, or why the person committing suicide to deliberately inflict suffering onto another isn't committing a morally bad (or morally lamentable) act? I can't see a clear rebuttal in your previous posts.
I already did. At length. Why do you want me to do it again?

I quite agree, I wasn't saying otherwise.


Again, I'm not saying this, I'm merely stating (on a wider note than our debate on suicide) that I think it's best to take the feelings of others into account when deciding on one's actions.
Okay, then I can skip over any further statements along those lines, as they are not relevant.

I already did. At length.
Where?

All you've given (at least, all that I've seen given) is a response about 'feelings', which doesn't encompass, and certainly doesn't counter, my examples.

Your original claim was that it was "foolish" to think suicide could have moral implications. I've given two examples (the individual altruistically committing suicide to save another, and the individual committing suicide to hurt another) of where I think there are moral implications to suicide.

Your response of: "I'm sorry, Chumbly, but I'm still seeing nothing but "it hurts my feelings and that makes it an immoral action"" does not fully answer the second example (why, in your view, is it morally neutral to commit an act that is deliberately intended to hurt another human?) and doesn't touch upon the first example in any way; the first example isn't talking about 'feelings', it's talking about saving another's life.

So, again, could you state your case?

What about, in the case of the person committing suicide to save another's life, "it saved the life of another, at the expense of the individual, and that makes it a moral action (or at least morally commendable)"?

Classic example: Jesus. Dying for all of us according to legend. Generally considered to be a moral guy.

Classic example: Jesus. Dying for all of us according to legend. Generally considered to be a moral guy.
Yes, kinda, though I wouldn't consider forced execution as suicide. I was more going for the example of someone acting in such a way to save another's life, yet knowing that their actions would kill themselves.

Throwing yourself in front of a speeding bus to save a child; that sort of thing.

Yes, kinda, though I wouldn't consider forced execution as suicide.

Central to the story of the crucifixion is that Jesus could have escaped his fate, but actually chose not to run (/call upon daddy to help). While it definitely was an assisted suicide, it was a suicide.

Throwing yourself in front of a speeding bus to save a child; that sort of thing.
Fireman storming into an inferno to save the baby and kitten. Classic examples indeed.

Central to the story of the crucifixion is that Jesus could have escaped his fate, but actually chose not to run (/call upon daddy to help). While it definitely was an assisted suicide, it was a suicide.
Oh, that's an interesting way to think about it. And it certainly fits my criteria of acting in such a way to save someone's life (or, in this case, the eternal souls of the world) with the knowledge that your actions will end your life.

Still, the character of Jesus had, I think, an advantage in that he knew where he was going after death (admittedly, with a brief sojourn in Hell), and that his death wasn't the end of him.

Hmm. To mangle a phrase, you can take the kid out of the church's theology, but you can't take the church's theology out of the kid.

yes you should be able to kil yourself. I don't think that anyone who's commited suicide has regretted it.

bout the Jesus thing. Me and my firend brought up the point that if u commit sucicide u go to hell and by allowing himself to be killed he was commiting passive suicide. God went to hell

bout the Jesus thing. Me and my firend brought up the point that if u commit sucicide u go to hell and by allowing himself to be killed he was commiting passive suicide. God went to hell

That is indeed the idea, yes. Three days in Hell to rid humanity of original sin.

he didnt save anyone's life. He could have escaped his fate and healed people . Or God could avoid being an asshole and have never sent him to die in the first place

he didnt save anyone's life. He could have escaped his fate and healed people . Or God could avoid being an asshole and have never sent him to die in the first place

The Bible sure is a silly story. Almost as bad as the plot of The Matrix.

Before going into all the quotations, here's my view on the subject:

I find that suicide is acceptable if done for the sake of others as in a "he was tortured to death for not giving them info that would put the World in danger" or "If she didn't say behind and *some kind of act*, we wouldn't have made it out alive" but not in the "I've caused my family and friends a lot of trouble. They'll be better off without me." kind of way as I find the latter a BS kind of excuse.

___


Ever give it a try? I mean, ever stare down the barrel of a gun?

There's nothing easy about it.

Note: This is from page 17 so I don't expect Forensatha to reply, but I wanted to put in my input anyways.

If suicide is not the so called "easy way out" and is in fact hard to do (possibly the hardest the hardest thing you could do), why don't you do the "easier" option(s) you got then (aka dealing with the problem that you wish to kill yourself over)?

He could have escaped his fate and healed people .

To the former: According to the Bible, Jesus was doing that for quite a while.

The latter: Again, according to the Bible, Jesus healed a multitude of people during his travels.

God went to hell

Of course, this is only if you believe that you believe in the Trinity (Father-Son-Holy Spirit = 1 entity). But that's besides the point.

In the Torah (Old Testament), it says that all the dead go to Sheol, the underworld which is effectively a large waiting room for Judgment Day. If Jesus went to Hell, there would be no one there to save as no one has been judged yet, which means Hell is empty (No souls, no demons, nothing).

Central to the story of the crucifixion is that Jesus could have escaped his fate, but actually chose not to run (/call upon daddy to help). While it definitely was an assisted suicide, it was a suicide.

To expand on this, one of Jesus' last sayings was "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. He didn't want to do it, but he did for the Greater Good (aka salvation for humanity). He was being a martyr which is generally considered an acceptable situation for suicide as you are sacrificing yourself for the many.

Trinjapmenistan;14114770']Note: This is from page 17 so I don't expect Forensatha to reply, but I wanted to put in my input anyways.

I'm silently wondering why this thread won't die. It's like some kind of weird zombie thread. It falls down dead, only to get up and shamble around some more.

If suicide is not the so called "easy way out" and is in fact hard to do (possibly the hardest the hardest thing you could do), why don't you do the "easier" option(s) you got then (aka dealing with the problem that you wish to kill yourself over)?

Because with some things, there simply isn't an easier solution.

I'm silently wondering why this thread won't die. It's like some kind of weird zombie thread. It falls down dead, only to get up and shamble around some more.

I guess this is slightly ironic since I usually hate it when that happens too (at least when I was part of the original discussion). On the other hand I guess I understand why people do it as they want to be in the discussion or just put in their input, but they're late to the party so to speak.

The only real solution for these types of threads is a lock or else they'll just pop right back up.

Because with some things, there simply isn't an easier solution.

Could you give some examples where you feel this is true?

Trinjapmenistan;14114848']I guess this is slightly ironic since I usually hate it when that happens too (at least when I was part of the original discussion). On the other hand I guess I understand why people do it as they want to be in the discussion or just put in their input, but they're late to the party so to speak.

The only real solution for these types of threads is a lock or else they'll just pop right back up.

I'd rather not do what it takes to get this locked.

Could you give some examples where you feel this is true?

Clinical depression, inopperable brain cancer, and rabies are just a few examples. Note that people can survive with the first one, but it's just as difficult, if not more so, than taking their own life and often requires a massive amount of willpower to do it without medication.

Where?

All you've given (at least, all that I've seen given) is a response about 'feelings', which doesn't encompass, and certainly doesn't counter, my examples.

Your original claim was that it was "foolish" to think suicide could have moral implications. I've given two examples (the individual altruistically committing suicide to save another, and the individual committing suicide to hurt another) of where I think there are moral implications to suicide.

Your response of: "I'm sorry, Chumbly, but I'm still seeing nothing but "it hurts my feelings and that makes it an immoral action"" does not fully answer the second example (why, in your view, is it morally neutral to commit an act that is deliberately intended to hurt another human?) and doesn't touch upon the first example in any way; the first example isn't talking about 'feelings', it's talking about saving another's life.

So, again, could you state your case?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14110149#post14110149

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14111406#post14111406

Are you going to be one of those people who don't read the argument they are participating in?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14110149#post14110149

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14111406#post14111406

Are you going to be one of those people who don't read the argument they are participating in?
Neither of these posts show why my examples don't work.

Indeed, in the first post linked, you remark that the "killer's intent is what defines murder as an immoral act". If you concur that an intent to hurt another (physically), combined with the act (murder), makes an act immoral, then surely you'd also contend that intent to hurt someone (psychologically) combined with the act (suicide) makes an act immoral.

If you feel I'm being obtuse, spell your argument out to me. So far, it appears you haven't got one.

Classic example: Jesus. Dying for all of us according to legend. Generally considered to be a moral guy.

How about a real example, not one from a work of fiction.

How about a real example, not one from a work of fiction.

Those were given in the posts directly underneath the one you quoted ;)
Besides of which - why does it matter if it is from a work of fiction ? People consider it a praiseworthy (hell - even worshipworthy) act. It does not matter if someone really did it or not.

Those were given in the posts directly underneath the one you quoted ;)
Would have saved time if you'd just done that to begin with (although I wouldn't call a fireman charging into an inferno suicide since there is no intention to die and plenty of them survive it)
Besides of which - why does it matter if it is from a work of fiction ? People consider it a praiseworthy (hell - even worshipworthy) act. It does not matter if someone really did it or not.
What can I say? People are stupid... ;)

Would have saved time if you'd just done that to begin with

Why ? We are talking about morals here and for a majority of humanity the story about the suicide of Jesus is an example of a noble act. Just like the knight fighting the dragon to save the fair damsel is considered brave and the king giving away all his possessions to the poor noble ;)

THAT does not make people stupid. Though I will not dispute they are ;)

Neither of these posts show why my examples don't work.

Indeed, in the first post linked, you remark that the "killer's intent is what defines murder as an immoral act". If you concur that an intent to hurt another (physically), combined with the act (murder), makes an act immoral, then surely you'd also contend that intent to hurt someone (psychologically) combined with the act (suicide) makes an act immoral.

If you feel I'm being obtuse, spell your argument out to me. So far, it appears you haven't got one.
I say this from a place of love, CW: Go to hell.

1) You did not ask me to show you how your examples don't work (you annoying little *****). You asked me to lay out my own argument, and THAT is what those two posts do.

2) I have ALREADY told you how your two examples don't work. No, I will not go looking for the posts in which I do that because they are recent enough that you should already be aware of them. I refuse absolutely to be made to run in circles telling you the same thing over and over again for no purpose other than so you can keep talking. Read the fucking thread and respond to what's written there, or see my first sentence, above.

Or, alternatively, recognize that you are not going to convince me that you are not wrong just by annoying me, call this one a draw, and go bother someone else. You are not making any dents in my opinion of your argument, and at the rate you're going and with the tactics you're using, you never will.

I say this from a place of love, CW: Go to hell.
Awww. :p

1) You did not ask me to show you how your examples don't work (you annoying little *****). You asked me to lay out my own argument, and THAT is what those two posts do.
Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but I thought it was obvious from my last couple of posts that I was asking for both a rebuttal of my examples and a stating of your case.

If you wish to posit that suicide can never have any moral implications, then you obviously need to show how my examples of suicide with moral implications are faulty.

2) I have ALREADY told you how your two examples don't work. No, I will not go looking for the posts in which I do that because they are recent enough that you should already be aware of them. I refuse absolutely to be made to run in circles telling you the same thing over and over again for no purpose other than so you can keep talking. Read the fucking thread and respond to what's written there, or see my first sentence, above.
No need to get all angry...

You haven't shown how my examples don't work. All you've done is state that I'm appealing baselessly to 'feelings (when it's quite apparent that the issue is wider than 'feelings', especially in my first example), and posited the discredited position that the effect of death to family/friends is the same if the loved one died naturally, in an accident, by suicide or by murder.

So, why in your view is it morally neutral to commit an act that is deliberately intended to hurt another human?

And, why in your view is it morally neutral to commit an altruistic act that is deliberately intended to save the life of another human at the expense of one's own?

To defend your position, you'll have to answer the above. Whining about misread posts and obstinately refusing to debate the argument at hand won't get you out of this one, kiddo.

When you instigate bad threads

Awww. :p


Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but I thought it was obvious from my last couple of posts that I was asking for both a rebuttal of my examples and a stating of your case.

If you wish to posit that suicide can never have any moral implications, then you obviously need to show how my examples of suicide with moral implications are faulty.


No need to get all angry...
Too late.

You haven't shown how my examples don't work. All you've done is state that I'm appealing baselessly to 'feelings (when it's quite apparent that the issue is wider than 'feelings', especially in my first example(, and posited the discredited position that the effect of death to family/friends is the same if the loved one died naturally, in an accident, by suicide or by murder.

So, why in your view is it morally neutral to commit an act that is deliberately intended to hurt another human?

And, why in your view is it morally neutral to commit an altruistic act that is deliberately intended to save the life of another human at the expense of one's own?

To defend your position, you'll have to answer the above. Whining about misread posts and obstinately refusing to debate the argument at hand won't get you out of this one, kiddo.
No, i don't have to, because I already did.

Your refusal to read the posts you claim to be responding to is what is annoying me. You accomplish nothing but to reduce the discussion to an endless loop of repetition. (This seems to be the fashion at NSG this year, as two other posters, utterly unlike you in style and interests, have done it so much that I have put them on ignore to avoid being baited into such loops by them again.)

Your (professed) lack of awareness that I already made the point you are asking me to make (and which is stated clearly and specifically in the two posts you claimed did not address your question) causes me to think that you actually have no interest in getting anywhere with this discussion. It makes me think that it will never make any difference what I say, whatever I say, because you are just ignoring me. Well, I'm sorry, CW, but you don't get to ignore me and bother me at the same time.

You want to discuss something, fine. You want to play some stupid game where you just keep me posting the same words over and over, find some other patsy.

It's probably something that should only be done when all potential psychological issues that would cause a person to want to kill themselves are ruled out. Like, if a person is depressed and can be helped, they should allow some attempts at being helped before going off and killing themselves.

Otherwise, I don't think it's something that should really be illegal, but people should discuss it with their family and friends before they do it and at least say goodbye properly and maybe there should be a designated place where a person can do this instead of just letting someone who cares about them find them one morning.

No, i don't have to, because I already did.

Carefully now: I don't see where you have.

I've read and re-read your posts, but I don't see a good rebuttal of my examples. You seem to think some are there, all I'm asking is for you to point them out to me. If it's so infuriating to you that I can't see your points, quote the exact text which shows my two examples to be faulty. Don't point me to links, repeat what you've said if necessary; you're quite able of posting many words on your annoyance, are you unable to (re)write a couple of sentences on two simple questions?

You complain about the thread descending into an "endless loop of repetition", yet for the past three posts have simply been rabbiting your call for me to read your posts (as if I never had), while never answering my questions.

It's quite a simple task, though if you have no wish to discuss further, feel free to go off in an unwarranted huff.

I simply don't understand why you'd be so angry.

Suicide is selfish.

It is only acceptable as a way out when you are facing a truly inevitable, imminent, and massively painful demise. Preferably if the imminent demise is within a few minutes or hours.

Like if a Shark swallowed you whole and you had a hand grenade.

Of course, that's not only suicide, that's getting back at the fucker.

It's not selfish. Those people do not use ratio.

Lock them up when they become suicidal.

It's kinda hard to tell when someones become sucicidal until theyve killed themselves. I propose that we kill suicidal ppl and thus solve the prblm. LOL sacrcasm wins again

Suicide is selfish.

Ya, but so is owning anything that you don't need for your imminent survival. Any amassing of wealth is selfish. But i love being selfish so i amass wealth.

Carefully now: I don't see where you have.

I've read and re-read your posts, but I don't see a good rebuttal of my examples. You seem to think some are there, all I'm asking is for you to point them out to me. If it's so infuriating to you that I can't see your points, quote the exact text which shows my two examples to be faulty. Don't point me to links, repeat what you've said if necessary; you're quite able of posting many words on your annoyance, are you unable to (re)write a couple of sentences on two simple questions?

You complain about the thread descending into an "endless loop of repetition", yet for the past three posts have simply been rabbiting your call for me to read your posts (as if I never had), while never answering my questions.

It's quite a simple task, though if you have no wish to discuss further, feel free to go off in an unwarranted huff.

I simply don't understand why you'd be so angry.
Here's the part that does not seem to occur to you:

You say you have read my posts. If so, then it should be obvious to you by now that I believe I have laid out my argument clearly and completely and that I do not see the same lack of responsiveness to your questions that you do.

And yet you continue to ask the same questions over and over.

At what point, I wonder, are you going to go refer directly to my argument, tell me what it means to you, and ask me specific questions in reference to it that would give me even the slightest hint what you feel is missing from it so that I actually could respond in a new and constructive way.

Ever think of doing that? Just for shits and giggles? Something along the lines of "well, here, you say XYZ, but my view of it is ABC, and from that perspective, I see this problem with your argument: <explanation of problem>. How do you resolve that?"

Instead, all you have been saying to me is "how is <this or that> not a moral situation?" and "do you think <this or that> is a moral situation?"

And that annoys me because I have stated specifically -- in quite simple words -- just what I think is or is not a moral situation. Yet when I point you to posts in which I describe what I think has or doesn't have moral implications, you keep telling me that those posts don't say what I think has or doesn't have moral implications.

It makes me think you are being deliberately bullheaded and argumentative. And it makes me wish I was dating you so I could break up with you.

EDIT: And in specific reference to this:
If it's so infuriating to you that I can't see your points, quote the exact text which shows my two examples to be faulty. Don't point me to links, repeat what you've said if necessary;
No. I will not do that.

Why?

Simple. Because I will not spam up the thread by posting the same statements over and over again, or putting up posts that consist of just quotes of myself. Read the damned thread. (And what reason do I have to believe that if I tell it to you again, it will get any further into your head than it did the first two or three times I said it to you?)

EDIT2: And in reference to spamming the thread: If you really are not capable of reading the thread and finding the arguments you wish to attack or explore, but instead want to make this argument be all about you scolding me for not typing on demand for you, then this party's over. This off-topic argument is also spamming the thread, and I'm done with it. Look up the points you want to attack or don't, but do not keep pestering me with nonsense.

It makes me think you are being deliberately bullheaded and argumentative. And it makes me wish I was dating you so I could break up with you.


I think this is the awesomest thing I have ever read.

I think this is the awesomest thing I have ever read.
Well, I just find it a bit frustrating. ;) :D

Ya, but so is owning anything that you don't need for your imminent survival. Any amassing of wealth is selfish. But i love being selfish so i amass wealth.

Suicide is an act in which one shrugs off all responsibility.

Amassing wealth, on the other hand, usually requires some degree of discipline or responsibility.

Suicide is an act in which one shrugs off all responsibility.

Amassing wealth, on the other hand, usually requires some degree of discipline or responsibility.

So? Amassing wealth isn't an inherently good thing. Especially if the methods you use are harmful to others. So discipline and responsibility don't automatically trump 'shrugging off responsibility'.

At what point, I wonder, are you going to go refer directly to my argument, tell me what it means to you, and ask me specific questions in reference to it that would give me even the slightest hint what you feel is missing from it so that I actually could respond in a new and constructive way.
That's what I've been doing the whole time, and was happily continuing to do so up until the point you had a tantrum:

...The act's obviously important here; intending to save someone's life but not acting to do so has different (moral) implications than intending and acting to save someone's life. Thus the act of, and intent to commit, suicide can be described in some situations as morally good.

Such as when one commits suicide to hurt another. Again, the act's obviously important here; intending to hurt someone but not acting to do so has different (moral) implications than intending and acting to hurt someone. Thus the act of, and intent to commit, suicide can be described as morally bad.

Thus suicide can have moral implications; suicide is not always a morally neutral act.
I'm sorry, Chumbly, but I'm still seeing nothing but "it hurts my feelings and that makes it an immoral action."
What about, in the case of the person committing suicide to save another's life, "it saved the life of another, at the expense of the individual, and that makes it a moral action (or at least morally commendable)"?

Could you state your case as to why the person altruistically sacrificing their life to save another isn't committing a morally good (or morally praiseworthy) act, or why the person committing suicide to deliberately inflict suffering onto another isn't committing a morally bad (or morally lamentable) act? I can't see a clear rebuttal in your previous posts.
I already did.
The debate can't go any further because I don't know your position and cannot gather it from what you've previously written. All I want, is some clarification of what you think you "already did". Hell, give me the first word(s) of the sentence(s) and I'll find it myself, try to gather your meaning.

Unless you have some deadly reaction to clarifying your argument, I see no reason why you're being so needlessly obstinate.

Because I will not spam up the thread by posting the same statements over and over again, or putting up posts that consist of just quotes of myself.
But you'll take the best part of two pages to talk, in massive length, about how you're not going to explain an argument.

This thread needs a musical interlude:

'Suicide is Painless'

Through early morning fog I see

visions of the things to be

the pains that are withheld for me

I realize and I can see...

[REFRAIN]:

that suicide is painless

It brings on many changes

and I can take or leave it if I please.

I try to find a way to make

all our little joys relate

without that ever-present hate

but now I know that it's too late, and...

[REFRAIN]

The game of life is hard to play

I'm gonna lose it anyway

The losing card I'll someday lay

so this is all I have to say.

[REFRAIN]

The only way to win is cheat

And lay it down before I'm beat

and to another give my seat

for that's the only painless feat.

[REFRAIN]

The sword of time will pierce our skins

It doesn't hurt when it begins

But as it works its way on in

The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...

[REFRAIN]

A brave man once requested me

to answer questions that are key

is it to be or not to be

and I replied 'oh why ask me?'

[REFRAIN]

'Cause suicide is painless

it brings on many changes

and I can take or leave it if I please.

...and you can do the same thing if you please.

But you'll take the best part of two pages to talk, in massive length, about how you're not going to explain an argument.

Tell me about it. Luckily it ended up with her blocking me, so now I can just laugh at the ridiculousness, without ever having to take part in it.

That's what I've been doing the whole time, and was happily continuing to do so up until the point you had a tantrum:





The debate can't go any further because I don't know your position and cannot gather it from what you've previously written. All I want, is some clarification of what you think you "already did". Hell, give me the first word(s) of the sentence(s) and I'll find it myself, try to gather your meaning.

Unless you have some deadly reaction to clarifying your argument, I see no reason why you're being so needlessly obstinate.


But you'll take the best part of two pages to talk, in massive length, about how you're not going to explain an argument.
Nice cherry picking. There are several other posts exchanged between you and me that contain more information about my position, so your claim that I have not told it to you is, to be blunt, a lie. This only reinforces my suspicion that you are arguing with me under false pretenses. (It also reinforces my suspicion that the only words you are paying attention to are yours.)

Second, there was a good amount of debate on the issue before you started talking to me, so once again: Read. The. Thread. (Though I'm beginning to think that, if my suspicions above are correct, it won't make any difference.)

Third, you are still off topic. Further posts complaining of my refusal to restate my entire argument on demand will be ignored. I will wait for you to say something that actually advances the discussion.

Nice cherry picking. There are several other posts exchanged between you and me that contain more information about my position, so your claim that I have not told it to you is, to be blunt, a lie.
Now you're just being ridiculous.

Why on Earth would I lie about not understanding your argument?

This only reinforces my suspicion that you are arguing with me under false pretenses.
You poor, deluded soul. What sort of conspiracy do you think is against you? What nefarious plot do you imagine I'm hatching?

Does anyone else share my confusion as to Muravyets anger?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Why on Earth would I lie about not understanding your argument?


You poor, deluded soul. What sort of conspiracy do you think is against you? What nefarious plot do you imagine I'm hatching?
Funnily enough, I already told you that, too. It's a one-person plot to be a pain in my ass. 'Bye.

Does anyone else share my confusion as to Muravyets anger?
I know Hydesland does. You and he are in a small, exclusive club. Enjoy.

This thread needs another musical interlude:

Stormtroopers Of Death - Kill Yourself

Can't take it, never could
Time to end it, wish you would
Friends and family, they're all gone
Life for you is just a con
Dig yourself a hole in the ground
Push up daisies six feet down
Take a dirt nap, buy the farm
Inject a bubble in your arm

Kill yourself, kill yourself!
Why don't you kill yourself?
Don't rely on no one else
End it all just kill yourself!
Life is just a one way ticket
Everyone must go around
Here's a bucket go and kick it
Slit your wrists without a sound
When you go don't make a big deal
No dramatics, don't overplay
Cause don't you know that we'll all feel
Better once you've gone away

Kill yourself, kill yourself!
Why don't you kill yourself?

You're a loser, there's nothing left for you
A worthless loser, at everything you do

Its a tricky issue here.
Suicide ofcourse, by itself is a fundamental right.

HOWEVER!

In certain circumstances where you consider suicide you are not mentally well, the mentally unwell, unfortunately, have no rights. They need looking after.

So, i support the right to commit suicide provided the person performing the act is in a situation where they are mentally well, and yet want to commit suicide.