A fundy committed suicide.

[willhaven]

.
This begs the question of what you think constitutes a reason for suicide that is both intelligent and necessary.

IMHO, such a reason could be that a person has a 100% fatal and incurable disease (pancreatic cancer, perhaps?), wishes to spare him- or her-self the indignity and pain of the terminal phase, and wants his or her heirs to not grieve extensively. In other words, to just get it over with and avoid most of the mess and fuss of a protracted dying process. But that's just my opinion.

That's essentially my outlook as well. Basically, any instance where you will most likely suffer death and want to:

1) Take your own life yourself.
2) Stop some kind of intense and unbearable suffering that will likely never end.

There's your problem, assuming there is a "rationale" at all.

Or a lack of rationale anyway. Whatever line of thinking drives someone to suicide is a broken line of thinking. Much like the majority thinking that drives someone to kill another person is a broken line of thinking.

Suicide is not a reflex. Heading home and stringing yourself over a beam or pulling a revolver out of a drawer and putting it to your head involves some sort of rationale.

Yes. I've compartmentalised it and built walls around it and put up screens, but my daughter's death hurts just as much as it did then. I found reasons to keep going- my other two children- but I'm not about to fault someone who didn't. I know what they felt. You don't. That's why I consider your condemnation ignorant and arrogant.

Had you committed suicide as a result of your trauma, would you consider any condemnation from your family members to be ignorant or arrogant?

Regardless, you've dealt with your loss in some way. You've built emotional walls or processed it in a way that made it hurt less and allowed you to move on with your life. It doesn't mean you are no longer sad, but you can manage.

That's nothing more than your ignorant, pulled-out-of-your-arse assumption. I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary, though. Have any?

What makes someone commit suicide? They weigh the painful consequence of some action or decision as being more unbearable than death. Some people decide death is preferable to continuing to live, some people don't. Why is there a difference? Some people are equipped to deal with extreme emotional distress and some are not.

In what way is that view ignorant?

They are emotionly laden words, conveying that the person using them is making an emotional value judment rather than a reasoned one. In my mind, that conveys just as much ignorance as that which the useage is meant to condemn.

Aside from what I mention above with intense/irreversible suffering or impending/inevitable death, what reasonable justification do you believe there is for committing suicide?

All words carry emotion with them. All reasoning has some emotional impact. Is a willful suicide not an emotional statement?

Just confirming that you are making a judgement that you think you know better than they do what they are feeling.

Indeed I am.

Did you happen to notice how and why? Keep digging, you are just confirming your ignorance.

I just found that to be incredibly ironic.

If they are incapable (which seems the only reasonable assement given your "determinism") then why make the value jugement?

Because that's what I do every day. I am constantly making value judgments about people and their actions. It's a part of the human condition to make those judgments and to hold people to some standard of conduct.

Yes, people make incorrect judments every day. That's not something to celebrate, and I don't consider it exculpatory for one's own incorrect judgments.

Would you say that someone who commits suicide has made an incorrect judgment? In many cases, I would say they have.

Much like someone who tries to pull into my lane without seeing me on the highway is an incorrect judgment on their part. I have a reaction to that misjudgment of theirs. Typically I will call them a stupid idiot.

If a member of my family committed suicide, I would likely find myself both very sad, very guilty, and incredibly angry. The guy who I knew who offed himself because his GF left him was my best friend's brother. I saw firsthand how their family reacted. It was definitely complex and went beyond "sad."

I guess you can't help being arrogant in your ignorance, then? Is that what you're saying?

Do you ever call someone stupid? Are you ever angry at anyone? Of course you do, and of course you are. Welcome to humanity.

It is perspective, certainly. Are you saying the degree to which you are comfortable making harsh and uncompromising judgements about people's actions to inversly relational to the amount of knowledge you have about them?

Who says my judgments are uncompromising? It depends on the rationale involved. I've said a number of times that most suicide seems frivolous given their triggers. Not all, just most. Depending on what drove the person to suicide, there is a sliding scale from "noble hero" to "complete idiot."

If someone offs themselves because the just learned that their entire family had been killed, you inherently carry a weight of understanding for their reaction. If someone offs themselves because someone cut in line at the supermarket and got the last of the Skittles, you'd likely call them an idiot.

Personally, I find the amount of empathy I have for someone who has committed suicide to grow depending on the cause and if I knew the person. What else would you expect?

Why does what "most people" do have anything at all to do with what any individual person does?

If they don't do what most people do, they are statistical outliers. Someone who goes on a shooting spree because they were fired is usually looked upon as a crazy maniac. Maybe we're really just ignorant of the factors leading to their murderous rampage and we shouldn't be so quick to judge. Or we can see fit to judge everyone as we feel like we should. I think a guy who goes on a work place rampage is a maniac. I will usually think it's idiotic when someone kills themselves.

It is grotesque when one uses the generality to dictate what other people's behaviors "should be".

Do you think this "fundy" should have killed himself? Surely you have made some tentative judgment about him and his character given what we know.

Why does that have anything at all to do with someone who does?

Everyone is judged. For a person who did not commit suicide, you see them as strong, grieving and working through their pain. For the person who committed suicide, they may also be judged. Depending on the rationale they held when killing themselves, they may be judged as being an idiot.

Maybe. Maybe he has a large insurance policy on his own life that will at least get his own family out of trouble. (and no, not all insurance policies have exclusion clauses for suicide. The exclusion clauses for suicide in the policies my company sells expire after two years.)

Unless his wife were unable to work and he were convinced that his wife and child would have to resort to prostitution in order to get by, I can't see how giving them money through death is preferable to any other alternative.

In this case, we don't know. But I'm just willing to bet that I'd judge it to be a pretty frivolous trigger unworthy of suicide. I may be wrong, but I guess we'll see if any news of this bubbles up.

And when those judgments are based on insufficient information, what do you call that?

A judgment or an opinion. Otherwise I'd be calling it a fact.

Drop the "everyone" bit. You're not a mind reader. You don't know the first thing about what "everyone" thinks.

Sure I do. You can gauge and make judgments about how people think by their behavior.

Go ahead and say it, we already know. You have notions of how everyone should act in general. You don't like it when someone is acting outside of your expectations. That's all right. You're not a bad person for thinking that way. It is okay to be wrong.

Everyone does this. Everyone with a functioning brain has expectations of others and are thrown off when someone does not meet those expectations. The expectations may differ from person to person, but they are there. You have your set of expectations and apparently your set of expectations involves not making negative judgments about people who have committed suicide.

But if they were unable to act otherwise, why judge them at all?

How can I not judge them? Judgments of others range from being told of the existence of a person by name in a random conversation, all the way to judging a spouse or a child. When you are aware of a person, we immediately make judgments. You walk down the street and you make judgments about every person you see. Your judgments may or may not be correct, but you do make them. I make judgments too, whether or not I know the whole story. Same as you. My judgments may differ from yours, but it doesn't make them right or wrong, just different.

Of course not. Nothing you've posted in this thread has the slightest bit of reason or evidence behind it, that is perfectly clear.

Well, aside from the fact that most people do no take their own lives, that's about the only bit of fact I've dished out in this thread. The rest is judgment, opinion and speculation and I think I'm entitled to that.

Wait- I thought you were "not trying to provide proof of anything"- this implies that you have some kind of statistical analysis to which you are referring. Or are you ignorant that the term "bell curve" wasn't just some "general" metaphoric device, but actually meant something specific?

Do you think that most people are driven to suicide at some point in their life? No? Neither do I. You and I can make this observation pretty plainly. Unless the majority of us knowingly commit suicide shortly after fertilization, I think it's pretty safe to assume that suicide is a statistical anomaly. Wouldn't you agree?

You are certainly allowed to be wrong, yes. And as arrogant and ignorant as you please. You can even wave it around for everyone to laugh at, as you do here.

So, the family of my best friend. When his brother put a gun in his mouth and ended his life, were they entitled to be angry? Of course they were. Am I entitled to think that it was a stupid act? Of course I am. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just my opinion.

To him, it was obviously advantageous to end his life. His emotional suffering was too much to bear. Viewed through the lens of my experiences, I couldn't help but view it as a stupid act. From what I gathered, they felt it was a pretty needless and stupid act as well.

And you are fully aware of all their motivations, are you? How?

I never said I was aware of their motivations. I am aware, however, that most people who are subjected to emotional distress will not kill themselves. Though emotional distress will drive more people to suicide. Given my perspective I will make judgments accordingly, as will everyone else. Your judgments may vary.

I see. Since every person should have the same reaction to stimulus, any deviation from that makes them an idiot. Of course, it doesn't matter what happened before the event that made them an idiot-suicide because they should have already dealt with it.

After all, it's so very, very easy for these idiots to get help. So what if there is bias against people (excuse me, potential idiots) who experience depression. They really just need to deal with it, right? Then again, your well-researched and hyper-empathetic approach should take care of any need for treatment.

Who said I was trying to treat or cure thoughts of suicide? I'm just making a judgment. I'm giving my opinion. Were I trying to keep someone from suicide, this wouldn't be my approach at all.

Read my "murderous workplace rampage" example above. We judge the actions of others and are often unaware of the stimulus leading to their response. We all judge the actions of others, and at some point people are responsible for how they react to the circumstances in their lives.

If someone goes out and commits murder, we judge that person. If someone goes out and becomes a philanthropist, we judge that person. If someone commits suicide for specific reasons, we judge that person.

Again, welcome to the human condition. Just because we are unaware of every stimulus leading to a given reaction doesn't mean we aren't judging or shouldn't judge those reactions based on how we feel or how society feels they should have reacted.

 

[Piscivore]

Or a lack of rationale anyway. Whatever line of thinking drives someone to suicide is a broken line of thinking.

How do you pretend to know this? You are assuming it is because you don't like the outcome. Assertion is not evidence.

Much like the majority thinking that drives someone to kill another person is a broken line of thinking.

Tell that to the Army. Assertion is not evidence.

Suicide is not a reflex.

Assertion is not evidence.

Heading home and stringing yourself over a beam or pulling a revolver out of a drawer and putting it to your head involves some sort of rationale.

Assertion is not evidence.

Had you committed suicide as a result of your trauma, would you consider any condemnation from your family members to be ignorant or arrogant?

No, because I would be dead and not "considering" anything.

Regardless, you've dealt with your loss in some way. You've built emotional walls or processed it in a way that made it hurt less and allowed you to move on with your life. It doesn't mean you are no longer sad, but you can manage.

And some people cannot. That's no reason to call them names to make ourselves feel better.

What makes someone commit suicide?

I don't know. I don't pretend to know, because I haven't done it, and I don't imagine that every single person is exactly alike.

They weigh the painful consequence of some action or decision as being more unbearable than death.

You assume that. An interesting notion, a "determinist" that assumes every act is consciously "decided".

Some people decide death is preferable to continuing to live, some people don't. Why is there a difference? Some people are equipped to deal with extreme emotional distress and some are not.

In what way is that view ignorant?

Besides the assumption that there is a "decision", and the implication that all emotional pains are equivilent, that all peoples should react in accordance with some vague "average", and that people that are not "equipped" to deal with their pain are "weak" if because they do not conform to your "average", there is the assertion that you made that some reasons are valider than others.

For starters.

Aside from what I mention above with intense/irreversible suffering or impending/inevitable death, what reasonable justification do you believe there is for committing suicide?

Who said suicide was "reasonable"? To whom must it be "justified"?

All words carry emotion with them.

And some more than others. making pretense to reason whilst using words loaded with emotional content is a poor trick.

All reasoning has some emotional impact. Is a willful suicide not an emotional statement?

Meaningless sophistry, and not even a good effort at it.

Indeed I am.

Is there anything besides pure arrogance and a delusional estimation of your own intelligence leading you to think you know this?

Because that's what I do every day. I am constantly making value judgments about people and their actions.

Why?

It's a part of the human condition to make those judgments and to hold people to some standard of conduct.

No it isn't. This is just yet another example of you trying to project your own thinking on "everyone" in order to legitimise it. To yourself, maybe? To me? Who are you trying to convince you are "average"?

Would you say that someone who commits suicide has made an incorrect judgment?

No. I don't presume to think I know what went on in their minds. Obviously you don't suffer from such inconveniences integrity might otherwise present.

In many cases, I would say they have.

Why? Because you don't like the result?

Much like someone who tries to pull into my lane without seeing me on the highway is an incorrect judgment on their part.

What if they did it deliberately because you were in their way?

I have a reaction to that misjudgment of theirs. Typically I will call them a stupid idiot.

Admitting you react irrationally to some situations you don't like does not mitigate similar bad reactions to other situations you don't like.

If a member of my family committed suicide, I would likely find myself both very sad, very guilty, and incredibly angry.

But you're just guessing. And that's enough to make it a fact for you, isn't it?

The guy who I knew who offed himself because his GF left him was my best friend's brother. I saw firsthand how their family reacted. It was definitely complex and went beyond "sad."

And so you pretend to know what "the guy" was thinking because it makes you feel better about the result you didn't like?

Do you ever call someone stupid?

I have. Didn't ever make me right, and I usually regreted it. Often in retrospect it was pot-kettle-black.

Are you ever angry at anyone?

Sure. I do not pretend it excuses whatever behaviour in which I therefore indulge, though.

Of course you do, and of course you are.

Don't speak for me.

Welcome to humanity.

Another one of your "generalities". Concluding that everybody act as you do because one other person does is a fallacy. I've pointed this out to you before.

Who says my judgments are uncompromising?

Right. You are willing to modify your pronouncements as your ignorance is mitigated. That makes acting arrogantly and judgemental okay, right?

It depends on the rationale involved.

And when there is none?

I've said a number of times that most suicide seems frivolous given their triggers.

"Triggers" that for the most part, you only guess at.

Not all, just most. Depending on what drove the person to suicide, there is a sliding scale from "noble hero" to "complete idiot."

Why bother with any kind of "scale" at all? For what reason do you feel a need to label other people's actions in such a way?

If someone offs themselves because the just learned that their entire family had been killed, you inherently carry a weight of understanding for their reaction.

Quit trying to speak for other people. You may feel like you "carry a weight of understanding for their reaction." You do not know that anyone else does.

If someone offs themselves because someone cut in line at the supermarket and got the last of the Skittles, you'd likely call them an idiot.

Quit trying to speak for other people. You haven't the slightest idea what I would do. Primarily because I don't either.

Personally, I find the amount of empathy I have for someone who has committed suicide to grow depending on the cause and if I knew the person.

What else would you expect?

A little less enthusiastic endorsement of making judgements based on sheer ignorance?

If they don't do what most people do, they are statistical outliers.

But you don't have any actuall statistics, do you? Just your assumptions.

Someone who goes on a shooting spree because they were fired is usually looked upon as a crazy maniac.

There's that implication that "usually" = "correct" again.

Maybe we're really just ignorant of the factors leading to their murderous rampage and we shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Gee, ya think? Which guy would you want on your jury- this guy, or the one that just stupidly thinks what "most people" do?

Or we can see fit to judge everyone as we feel like we should.

Don't try to speak for other people. There is no "we" there- only you.

Why judge at all?

I think a guy who goes on a work place rampage is a maniac. I will usually think it's idiotic when someone kills themselves.

Again, trumpeting your own propensity for hasty generalisation in certain instances does not excuse it. You are just confirming the foolishness of your own behaviour.

Do you think this "fundy" should have killed himself?

I do not- cannot- know what anyone else "should" do. Why do you pretend you do?

Surely you have made some tentative judgment about him and his character given what we know.

I know nothing of his character, no. I can surmise that he was troubled and in pain, bit even that is jsut going by third-hand accounts of his behaviour.

Everyone is judged.

Apparently, by you.

For a person who did not commit suicide, you see them as strong, grieving and working through their pain.

Don't pretend to speak for other people. Especailly, do not delude yourself you know what I think.

For the person who committed suicide, they may also be judged.

Why?

Depending on the rationale they held when killing themselves,

Which you don't know

...they may be judged as being an idiot.

Repeating your own fallactions judgements does not go one step towards showing them to be correct.

Unless his wife were unable to work and he were convinced that his wife and child would have to resort to prostitution in order to get by, I can't see how giving them money through death is preferable to any other alternative.

Argument from ignorance. That shouldn't surprise me.

In this case, we don't know.

Don't let that stop you.

But I'm just willing to bet that I'd judge it to be a pretty frivolous trigger unworthy of suicide.

Of course you would. You've demonstrated a marked propensity for jumping to hasty conclusion based upon nothing but your own assumptions. And you seem to be untroubled by any need to be correct, so soldier on.

Everyone does this. Everyone with a functioning brain has expectations of others and are thrown off when someone does not meet those expectations. The expectations may differ from person to person, but they are there.

Again, you pretend to speak for "everyone". No, not everyone is as driven by preconcieved notions as you seem to be.

You have your set of expectations and apparently your set of expectations involves not making negative judgments about people who have committed suicide.

That's not really an "expectation".

How can I not judge them?

Try it. It's not easy, at first, but when you first start to think "oh, what an idiot" remind yourself that you do not know everything there is to know about this person or situation, and there may be- indeed, from your own admission that you sometimes change your mind about these judgements of yours there often are- factors that you do not know about that would make your initial judgement appear foolish.

Judgments of others range from being told of the existence of a person by name in a random conversation, all the way to judging a spouse or a child. When you are aware of a person, we immediately make judgments.

Don't pretend to speak for others. There is no "we" there, only you.

You walk down the street and you make judgments about every person you see. Your judgments may or may not be correct, but you do make them.

Don't pretend to speak for me. You don't get to legitimise your own foolish actions by pretending that I do them too.

I make judgments too, whether or not I know the whole story.

Clearly. You even seem proud of such foolish behaviour.

Same as you.

No. You don't get to legitimise your own foolish actions by pretending that I do them too.

My judgments may differ from yours, but it doesn't make them right or wrong, just different.

Nonsense. Opinions are not all equivilent.

Well, aside from the fact that most people do no take their own lives, that's about the only bit of fact I've dished out in this thread. The rest is judgment, opinion and speculation and I think I'm entitled to that.

You are free to do so. I can't imagine who or what you imagine "entitles" you to do so.

Do you think that most people are driven to suicide at some point in their life?

What "most" people do is irrelevant. You seem to be going far beyond simple fallacy in inverting the relationship between "average" and "general" occurances as being prescriptive to behavior, instead of simply a statistical evaluation of behaviour.

No?

Don't. Answer. For. Me.

I do not pretend to know. Why do you?

Neither do I.

Why? What gives you special insight into "everybody's" mind?

You and I can make this observation pretty plainly.

The only relevant observation I can make is that not many people report to me that they have attempted suicide.

Unless the majority of us knowingly commit suicide shortly after fertilization, I think it's pretty safe to assume that suicide is a statistical anomaly. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Not only is this patently ridiculous, but you're now evaluating attempted suicide by looking at successful suicides. People may be "driven" to try, and fail, and then stop trying. And they may subsequently never speak of it.

So, the family of my best friend. When his brother put a gun in his mouth and ended his life, were they entitled to be angry?

Entitled by whom? What authority do you imagine licences emotion? Or do you mean entilted by your estimation? Because they are not "entitled" or not by my estimation, in any way whatsoever. It's none of my business.

Am I entitled to think that it was a stupid act?

"Entitled" by what?

To him, it was obviously advantageous to end his life. His emotional suffering was too much to bear.

You are guessing. You don't know.

Viewed through the lens of my experiences, I couldn't help but view it as a stupid act.

So you are destined to make arrogant judgments based on sheer ignorance?

From what I gathered, they felt it was a pretty needless and stupid act as well.

That's as close to rational as you've been all thread. Are you actually admitting you don't just know what other people think?

I never said I was aware of their motivations. I am aware, however, that most people who are subjected to emotional distress will not kill themselves.

Which fact is entirely irrelevant in the case of someone who does.

Though emotional distress will drive more people to suicide. Given my perspective I will make judgments accordingly, as will everyone else.

You don't speak for "everyone". You make judgements, you don't know that "everyone" does the same.

Your judgments may very.

Or not exist.

Who said I was trying to treat or cure thoughts of suicide? I'm just making a judgment. I'm giving my opinion. Were I trying to keep someone from suicide, this wouldn't be my approach at all.

Read my "murderous workplace rampage" example above. We judge the actions of others and are often unaware of the stimulus leading to their response. We all judge the actions of others, and at some point people are responsible for how they react to the circumstances in their lives.

If someone goes out and commits murder, we judge that person. If someone goes out and becomes a philanthropist, we judge that person. If someone commits suicide for specific reasons, we judge that person.

Again, welcome to the human condition. Just because we are unaware of every stimulus leading to a given reaction doesn't mean we aren't judging or shouldn't judge those reactions based on how we feel or how society feels they should have reacted.

I know this is for bookitty, but just to reiterate: There is no "we" there, you only speak for yourself. You do not get to speak for "humanity" or the "human condition"- it is the zenith of arrogance to assume that whatever one may oneself be and one's own behaviours, thoughts, limitations, and prejudices are the standard for "humanity".

 

[willhaven]

How do you pretend to know this? You are assuming it is because you don't like the outcome. Assertion is not evidence.

So suicide is a perfectly normal and rational decision to make then?

Tell that to the Army. Assertion is not evidence.

And observed behavior can be.

No, because I would be dead and not "considering" anything.

Nice dodge. I know you wouldn't literally be considering anything. Would you believe them to be arrogant and ignorant for being angry with you committing suicide or not?

And some people cannot. That's no reason to call them names to make ourselves feel better.

I'm sure you call plenty of people names and make judgments about people who do things you don't approve of either. What makes a suicide victim exempt from judgment?

You assume that. An interesting notion, a "determinist" that assumes every act is consciously "decided".

We still make decisions, but we make decisions based on specific stimulus.

Besides the assumption that there is a "decision", and the implication that all emotional pains are equivilent, that all peoples should react in accordance with some vague "average", and that people that are not "equipped" to deal with their pain are "weak" if because they do not conform to your "average", there is the assertion that you made that some reasons are valider than others.

There is a decision. In what way did the man not decide to put a gun to his body? Of course there was a decision. His actions were not reactionary or involuntary. There isn't a suicide reflex.

And I never attempted to imply that all emotional pain is equivalent. And some reasons for suicide do seem more valid than others. Where you and I draw the line may differ, but we all make those judgments. Suicide is sad, but a year or two ago I read of a man who committed suicide after he was swindled out of his hard-earned loot after years of playing Everquest online. Someone swindled him out of imaginary magic equipment and he put a .22 to his head and killed himself. Sorry if I think that's idiotic. I'm probably not alone in that judgment.

Who said suicide was "reasonable"? To whom must it be "justified"?

So you make no judgments of a man who commits suicide? Do you find it sad? Would it make you angry? No emotional change? Surely you have some general feeling that comes over you when you hear that someone kills oneself. Especially when you hear that the reasons are financial, social, or even imaginary, you have a different reaction to each.

Is there anything besides pure arrogance and a delusional estimation of your own intelligence leading you to think you know this?

I don't think I'm smarter than you. I'm just giving my opinion. There are people who I think I am smarter than. There are people who I think are smarter than I am. Most people, I don't know. My gut reaction to hearing that someone commits suicide is "wow, stupid." Why? Because I can't envision a scenario (aside from those I've previously stated) in which I would find suicide to be a reasonable alternative for myself.

I think the people involved are acting irrationally and I'm entitled to make my judgments of them because that's what I do.

Why?

Because I am a human being and that's how my brain operates.

No it isn't. This is just yet another example of you trying to project your own thinking on "everyone" in order to legitimise it. To yourself, maybe? To me? Who are you trying to convince you are "average"?

You make judgments every day about everyone and everything you encounter. Constantly. Judgments are not necessarily condemnations. If your brain is awake and functioning, you are making judgments. If you meet someone, you make judgments about them. Hell, even the 71 Cuda in my avatar and my location probably evoke some kind of response from you whether you know it or not.

We all judge the people we meet and the people we hear about. I've never met FDR, but having been a student of history in the past, I was told about him and his policies and his life and I have made judgments about FDR.

No. I don't presume to think I know what went on in their minds. Obviously you don't suffer from such inconveniences integrity might otherwise present.

Obviously they thought suicide was a good judgment. You have no opinion? Would you ever commit suicide? What would drive you to suicide?

Why? Because you don't like the result?

Of course. Because it doesn't match up with my perceptions and values. Which is why I'm making a judgment of their actions. I would say that a thief made bad judgments. I would say that a murderer made bad judgments. I would say that an adulterer made mad judgments. If I spoke harsh words of a murderer, you probably wouldn't mind. Why do you care if I speak harshly of those who commit suicide?

In many instances, stealing is bad. In many instances, killing another person is bad. In many instances, suicide is idiotic and needless.

What if they did it deliberately because you were in their way?

The law states that you must signal and have space in order to merge into a new lane. If they do not signal or have the space to pull into my lane, they are making a mistake. If they did it deliberately, they're a psychopath.

Admitting you react irrationally to some situations you don't like does not mitigate similar bad reactions to other situations you don't like.

Regardless, I'm entitled to my judgments, opinions and my point of view. I'm not going to write this guy's widow and berate her dead husband to make her feel bad. I hear a guy with a pregnant wife commits suicide and my reaction is "wow, stupid." I'm probably not in the minority with a thought like that.

But you're just guessing. And that's enough to make it a fact for you, isn't it?

No. I don't know it to be a fact. But having seen similar grieving firsthand, I have an idea what I might be in for if it were to happen to me.

And so you pretend to know what "the guy" was thinking because it makes you feel better about the result you didn't like?

Maybe his family lied to me about his intentions. I was told his girlfriend had broken up with him. I don't recall if he left a note or what it may have said. I definitely wouldn't have asked them what it said if he had left one. So I'm not pretending to know. I take on faith that his family were sure of his intentions if they bothered to let me know in the first place.

He was well built, relatively young, really intelligent, good looking guy. From what I was told, he took his own life due to a breakup. I happen to believe that was a stupid and senseless act. He obviously felt differently.

I have. Didn't ever make me right, and I usually regreted it. Often in retrospect it was pot-kettle-black.

In reality, no one is stupid. In reality, we're all just victims of circumstances or we're simply ignorant. Yet this doesn't stop us from comparing the actions of others with our own and how we expect others to behave.

Don't speak for me.

Unless something is wrong with your brain, that's pretty much universal. Welcome to humanity. We make judgments, we get angry, we sometimes think other people are stupid. You and I both.

Another one of your "generalities". Concluding that everybody act as you do because one other person does is a fallacy. I've pointed this out to you before.

Saying that one shouldn't speak in generalities is pointless. You can't speak in specific terms about much in this world. Many of the decisions we make in our lives are based on generalities. Humans generally behave in a certain way. Humans generally share the same set of emotions and the same emotional frailties. Humans generally don't kill themselves. When some behaviors fall outside of the norm, people tend to take notice and condemn some of these behaviors.

Right. You are willing to modify your pronouncements as your ignorance is mitigated. That makes acting arrogantly and judgemental okay, right?

When did I say that every single person who has ever committed suicide is an idiot? I never did and never implied this. Therefore my view of suicide is, indeed, compromising.

What makes my judgment or arrogance wrong? This guy and his family don't know what I've said. If I put a gun to my head and killed myself, I'd expect that somewhere in the world, someone would be laughing at me when my picture was flashed on the local news.

And when there is none?

Then you are comatose and are unable to commit suicide, you are suffering from severe mental illness, or you are some kind of cybernetic automaton who does not have control of their own actions.

Everyone who intentionally kills themselves has some rationale going through their head when they kick out the chair, swallow the pills or pull the trigger.

"Triggers" that for the most part, you only guess at.

Of course I'm guessing. I never said I knew why this guy killed himself. I still think the jury is out on how acute I will find his stupidity to be if and when the motive slips out.

Why bother with any kind of "scale" at all? For what reason do you feel a need to label other people's actions in such a way?

Because that's what human beings do. If you saw a picture of a repeat child pedophile who murdered his victims on television, I'm sure you make some judgments as well. You and I both judge every person we meet or take into consideration at all.

Quit trying to speak for other people. You may feel like you "carry a weight of understanding for their reaction." You do not know that anyone else does.

Some people might laugh. I don't know what their reactions or judgments will be, but there will be some judgment made.

Quit trying to speak for other people. You haven't the slightest idea what I would do. Primarily because I don't either.

Like I said above, I may not know what exact reaction you would have, but you would react and make some judgment.

A little less enthusiastic endorsement of making judgements based on sheer ignorance?

So I'm not entitled to an opinion? Or I'm just not entitled to an opinion that doesn't match your behavior?

But you don't have any actuall statistics, do you? Just your assumptions.

11.1 per 100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Hey look! My assumptions were correct.

There's that implication that "usually" = "correct" again.

Oh, I'm sure most of us would be pressuring our local law enforcement authorities to give the murderer a medal.

Gee, ya think? Which guy would you want on your jury- this guy, or the one that just stupidly thinks what "most people" do?

There are many rules of law, especially for police, which dictate police action based on what a "reasonable person" would do in a given situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

You mean they use generalities to convict people? Of course they do. If they didn't need them, there wouldn't be a jury making judgments in the first place. Sometimes they are wrong, but usually they are right.

I'm pretty certain that a reasonable person would look down on a man who went on a workplace rampage.

Don't try to speak for other people. There is no "we" there- only you.

Why judge at all?

That's the way my brain works. That's the way most brains work too. A properly functioning brain is making judgments about things and people all the time. There are some people we are too busy to make detailed judgments about, but they still happen.

Again, trumpeting your own propensity for hasty generalisation in certain instances does not excuse it. You are just confirming the foolishness of your own behaviour.

Well, that's the way my brain is wired. There isn't much I can do about it.

I do not- cannot- know what anyone else "should" do. Why do you pretend you do?

Project yourself into a similar situation. Do you see yourself ever being driven to suicide?

I know nothing of his character, no. I can surmise that he was troubled and in pain, bit even that is jsut going by third-hand accounts of his behaviour.

You don't know he was in pain. He might have been the happiest man alive when he pulled that trigger. He may have been told by god that he was ready to go to heaven, all he had to do was pull the trigger and the rapture would sweep up all the Christians on the earth and that he was chosen as the catalyst for that act.

See, you've made some judgment about his mental state based on what you have been told. It isn't the same as mine, but you have made a judgment. It's what we do.

Apparently, by you.

And you.

Don't pretend to speak for other people. Especailly, do not delude yourself you know what I think.

Ah, what would a reasonable person think?

Why?

If someone knows about their existence and their actions, they will judge them.

Which you don't know

Never said I did.

Repeating your own fallactions judgements does not go one step towards showing them to be correct.

I never said it was correct, but it is my judgment and I'm entitled to make it. I'm also entitled to voice it. And you are entitled to challenge it if you like.

Argument from ignorance. That shouldn't surprise me.

As would your possible interpretation of their actions. Neither of us are making assertions about these people and who they are. I am, however, giving my gut reaction. My reaction may change given more evidence.

Don't let that stop you.

Does it appear to be?

Of course you would. You've demonstrated a marked propensity for jumping to hasty conclusion based upon nothing but your own assumptions. And you seem to be untroubled by any need to be correct, so soldier on.

Sorry, if I find the suicide of others for reasons that I feel would not drive me to suicide to be stupid, that's how I'm programmed to react. I have standards for myself and I filter the actions of others against my own. When something doesn't mesh, it elicits a reaction.

Again, you pretend to speak for "everyone". No, not everyone is as driven by preconcieved notions as you seem to be.

Yes, we all are driven by preconceived notions. We have expectations of the world and when things fall out of the norm in a negative way, we get stressed. I don't pretend to know what everyone's norm is and what reactions people should have. I do, however, know how I feel when someone commits an act that falls well outside of my expectations and behavior. When this happens, I make judgments of their behavior. I am unable to do otherwise. Same with you. Your judgments may differ from mine, but you still make them.

That's not really an "expectation".

Then why bother to debate it in the first place? If it wasn't worthy of noting, you wouldn't have bothered to reply to me in the first place.

Try it. It's not easy, at first, but when you first start to think "oh, what an idiot" remind yourself that you do not know everything there is to know about this person or situation, and there may be- indeed, from your own admission that you sometimes change your mind about these judgements of yours there often are- factors that you do not know about that would make your initial judgement appear foolish.

I am well aware that, if knowledge or circumstances were different, my judgments might change. They still might, but from where I stand now, most of the suicides I have known of seem stupid when compared to my expectations of the world. I don't pretend to know the motivations of those involved, but I still make judgments.

Don't pretend to speak for others. There is no "we" there, only you.

Every person with a functioning brain makes judgments about the world and the people they interact with. The intensity of those judgments may vary on many factors, but judgments are made nonetheless.

Don't pretend to speak for me. You don't get to legitimise your own foolish actions by pretending that I do them too.

Everyone does it to some degree. I don't need to legitimize my judgments and opinions. They are simply my perspective. I don't pretend that my emotional/moral judgments of others are fact. There are, however, some cognitive universals that the overwhelming majority of people possess.

Saying that you make judgments of others is no more right, wrong or inflammatory than saying that you have likely experienced sadness in your life. Some things are basically universal unless you are brain dead or have some other disability.

Clearly. You even seem proud of such foolish behaviour.

There you go making judgments again. Maybe I'm proud, maybe I'm secretly ashamed that I made such a stupid statement earlier and I'm just trying to cover my own ass.

No. You don't get to legitimise your own foolish actions by pretending that I do them too.

You also make judgments of others. Just like me.

Nonsense. Opinions are not all equivilent.

Opinions are simply opinions. If you feel that some opinions are not the same as others, you have made a judgment of two expressed opinions. I have made a judgment of the actions of others given what I know.

You are free to do so. I can't imagine who or what you imagine "entitles" you to do so.

I would guess I do.

Don't. Answer. For. Me.

I do not pretend to know. Why do you?

So you are oblivious as to whether or not most people commit suicide? I'm not. I know that most people do not commit suicide.

Face it, some generalities can essentially be relied upon as fact in regards to everyday life. When things fall outside of our expectations, we make judgments about how we should feel and how we should react.

Why? What gives you special insight into "everybody's" mind?

Observed behavior of how many people seem to commit suicide. The facts seem to back up my general assumption that most people don't commit suicide. I'm also reasonably certain that, in an effort to simply not agree with me, you were unwilling to play along and show that you will also rely on generalities and make judgments from time to time. Surely you were not ignorant of the fact that most people do not commit suicide. You're just attempting to be contrary now.

The only relevant observation I can make is that not many people report to me that they have attempted suicide.

If the majority of us attempted suicide, we wouldn't have survived as a species to reach this point. It's reasonable to conclude that most people do not attempt suicide. If most people do attempt suicide and we are simply that ineffective at the task, then I should probably take those moon landing hoax people more seriously.

No. Not only is this patently ridiculous, but you're now evaluating attempted suicide by looking at successful suicides. People may be "driven" to try, and fail, and then stop trying. And they may subsequently never speak of it.

If most people are driven to suicide and fail, I weep for our species when most of us can't even jump off of a building or hang themselves correctly anymore.

Entitled by whom? What authority do you imagine licences emotion? Or do you mean entilted by your estimation? Because they are not "entitled" or not by my estimation, in any way whatsoever. It's none of my business.

We license our own emotion. I have mine, they had theirs, and the guy I knew who took his own life had his own emotions. If the emotions of his family and his had matched, they would have accepted and understood his suicide. From what I gathered, they did not.

"Entitled" by what?

Me.

You are guessing. You don't know.

So he pulled the trigger thinking that it was a stupid thing to do, and that he just wanted to go for a bike ride instead? He obviously made a judgment to take his own life and acted upon it. Unless he was under some form of mind control, he decided to take his own life and there was some thought process that led him there. I don't know exactly what it was, but he obviously thought that this was his best choice, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. It wasn't involuntary.

I wish he hadn't. He was smart and hilarious and even I missed him. I can't even imagine what his family felt. If I recall correctly, his father even used the word "stupid" to describe what happened on a few occasions. I don't recall any of the rest of the family commenting on it much.

So you are destined to make arrogant judgments based on sheer ignorance?

Yes. And you are too. Generalizations are a way of life. Sometimes our judgments are wrong and we wish we hadn't made them. Usually they are right, otherwise we would modify our generalizations and use those instead.

That's as close to rational as you've been all thread. Are you actually admitting you don't just know what other people think?

Never said I know what any single person was thinking. I can only make judgments based on their actions. He wouldn't have made the voluntary act of suicide without deciding that it was a good course of action that beat out the alternative. Otherwise, he would have made a different choice.

Which fact is entirely irrelevant in the case of someone who does.

And is also irrelevant as to how I judge them based on their actions. Well, my judgment would be tempered by other factors, one of which being that most people don't commit suicide and that I could not see myself committing suicide for most imaginable reasons.

And if it is a true suicide, everyone has some reason or rationale that leads them there.

You don't speak for "everyone". You make judgements, you don't know that "everyone" does the same.

Sure I do. Everyone who is a normal person with a functioning brain judges every person they see and many people who they are told about in conversation. Even your judgments about a new person which you are told about (Person B) are weighed against the judgments you have made about Person A who is telling you about the existence and actions of Person B.

If you judge Person A to reliable or trustworthy, you will be more apt to trust their judgment of Person B.

Regardless, you aren't immune to making judgments of the world around you because I happen to make judgments that you don't agree with. It's a trait I have that you don't seem to like, yet it's a trait we share in one way or another.

Or not exist.

They exist all right.

I know this is for bookitty, but just to reiterate: There is no "we" there, you only speak for yourself. You do not get to speak for "humanity" or the "human condition"- it is the zenith of arrogance to assume that whatever one may oneself be and one's own behaviours, thoughts, limitations, and prejudices are the standard for "humanity".

I can only speak to my own opinions and known facts. I can and do also speak to generalities that tend to be true. When things in the world and the behaviors of others don't match up with my expectations (and even when they do), I make judgments. So do you.

 

[Piscivore]

So suicide is a perfectly normal and rational decision to make then?

It's not rational, no. "Normal" is subjective and relative as to be meaningless- which is where I think you stumble. You display what seems to be a pronounced desire to fit everything into a pigeonhole that you may claim to understand it- hence your focus on "average", "general", and "normal".

And observed behavior can be.

Fine. Show me your evidence. What "behaviour" have you actually "observed"? Under what conditions?

Nice dodge. I know you wouldn't literally be considering anything.

I honestly wasn't sure you did. You seem to have a limitless ability to know what "everyone" thinks, I didn't know if that extraordinary power extended to the dead or not.

Would you believe them to be arrogant and ignorant for being angry with you committing suicide or not?

Maybe. I don't pretend to know. I cannot see the future, and I cannot tell you what "would" happen in any hypothetical circumstance. There are too many variables that I cannot take into account, and even more I probably don't even know I am not aware of.

I'm sure you call plenty of people names and make judgments about people who do things you don't approve of either.

What makes you "sure"? Because you do and you need to feel like you are an "average" human?

What makes a suicide victim exempt from judgment?

What makes it any of your business to judge him?

We still make decisions, but we make decisions based on specific stimulus.

There is a decision. In what way did the man not decide to put a gun to his body? Of course there was a decision.

Wiki:
"Some cognitive features may reflect global neurocognitive deficits in memory, attention, problem-solving, executive function ..."
"The executive system... is used by psychologists and neuroscientists to describe a loosely defined collection of brain processes which are responsible for... initiating appropriate actions and inhibiting inappropriate actions, and selecting relevant sensory information."

His actions were not reactionary or involuntary.

How do you know? Assertion isn't evidence.

There isn't a suicide reflex.

How do you know? Assertion isn't evidence.

And I never attempted to imply that all emotional pain is equivalent.

You certainly seem to. "All emotional stress is reversible or manageable."

Where you and I draw the line may differ, but we all make those judgments.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true.

So you make no judgments of a man who commits suicide?

No without knowing anything about him and his situation, no. It is not any of my business to judge him.

Do you find it sad?

I find it is unfortuante that he apparently suffered so much. I'm not going to weep for him. There's to much pain in the world for me to bleed for everyone.

Would it make you angry?

No. Why should it?

No emotional change?

Not really, no. This guy was not in my monkeysphere.

Surely you have some general feeling that comes over you when you hear that someone kills oneself.

"Surely"? Who are you trying to convince?

No, I do not have "some general feeling" about other people killing themselves. The suicide rate for the US in 2005 was 11 people per 100k. That's about 90 a day. That's too much for me to get myself worked up about.

Especially when you hear that the reasons are financial, social, or even imaginary, you have a different reaction to each.

No, I dont. You do. stop confusing yourself with everybody else.

I am not them. I did not live their life, I don't know what they suffered. Their reasons are theirs, and none of my business. Maybe their reasons would not be suficient for me (I don't know that either, not having been in thier position) but that is irrelevant, as they were likewise not me.

I don't think I'm smarter than you.

I didn't say you thought you were smarter than me. I said you overestimate your own intelligence, in that you seem to beleive you know what others think.

I'm just giving my opinion.

An opinion which you continue to demonstrate is foolish and ignorant.

There are people who I think I am smarter than. There are people who I think are smarter than I am.

Completely irrelevant. Why is everything with you a comparison to other people? The only relevant assement of your intelligence is whether you are smart enough to know what other poeple think. There is no eidence whatsoever this is the case, there is evidence that instead, the reverse is true, and yet you keep making claims to know what "everyone" thinks.

That's "idiotic".

Most people, I don't know. My gut reaction to hearing that someone commits suicide is "wow, stupid." Why? Because I can't envision a scenario (aside from those I've previously stated) in which I would find suicide to be a reasonable alternative for myself.

Celebrating the fact that you base your opinions on argument from ignorance doesn't really help you look any less a fool.

I think the people involved are acting irrationally and I'm entitled to make my judgments of them because that's what I do.

"Entitled" by who?

You make judgments every day about everyone and everything you encounter. Constantly.

Don't pretend to speak for me. You haven't the slightest idea what I do or how I think. I am not you, no one else is you. Whatever emotional need you are serving by assuming and insisting "everyone" is just like you does not make it correct.

Judgments are not necessarily condemnations. If your brain is awake and functioning, you are making judgments.

Assertion is not evidence.

If you meet someone, you make judgments about them.

Assertion is not evidence.

Hell, even the 71 Cuda in my avatar and my location probably evoke some kind of response from you whether you know it or not.

A "response" is not a "judgement". "Hey, that's a car" is a response, and about all that your avatar gets. Were you trying to make some kind of statement? Your location? "Raliegh, they talked about that town on 'Andy Griffith' all the time. I think it has something to do with the tobacco industry, too. Is that on the coast or not? Bet it is humid there. And buggy."

Were you expecting something else?

We all judge the people we meet and the people we hear about.

It's almost getting pathetic. What is driving this emotional need you have to think everyone is just like you?

Obviously they thought suicide was a good judgment.

Nothing "obvious" about it at all. You are assuming every action is a rational, reasoned one. So not true.

You have no opinion?

No. At best I could guess, and probably be wrong.

Would you ever commit suicide?

I don't know. I don't pretend to know the future.

What would drive you to suicide?

I don't know. Nothing that I've experienced thusfar.

Of course. Because it doesn't match up with my perceptions and values. Which is why I'm making a judgment of their actions.

A judgement of actions about which you know very little.

I would say that a thief made bad judgments.

What thief? Are all thieves equivilent?

I would say that a murderer made bad judgments.

What murderer? Are all murderers equivilent?

I would say that an adulterer made mad judgments.

What adulterer? Are all adulterers equivilent?

If I spoke harsh words of a murderer, you probably wouldn't mind.

Depends on the murderer. Why do you pretend to know what I would "mind" when I myself think the hypothetical is too vague to reliably guess how I would react? Are you deluded enough to imagine you know me better than I know me?

Why do you care if I speak harshly of those who commit suicide?

Why does it matter why I care? And who said I did? Maybe you're just an easy bone to chew on for my own entertainment.

In many instances, stealing is bad. In many instances, killing another person is bad. In many instances, suicide is idiotic and needless.

And "many" is enough to equal "all" in your mind, isn't it? Just as long as you've got a majority, you can just shove it all into a pigeonhole and canvince yourself you've got a good bead on things, right?

The law states that you must signal and have space in order to merge into a new lane. If they do not signal or have the space to pull into my lane, they are making a mistake. If they did it deliberately, they're a psychopath.

Don't try and drive in Arizona, then, my friend.

No. I don't know it to be a fact. But having seen similar grieving firsthand, I have an idea what I might be in for if it were to happen to me.

Good. Admitting you are only guessing is the first step.

Maybe his family lied to me about his intentions.

Or maybe they were wrong. Or maybe they were believing what made them feel better. Or maybe they ididn't think it was any of your business and just told you something so you'd piss off. I don't know.

I was told his girlfriend had broken up with him. I don't recall if he left a note or what it may have said. I definitely wouldn't have asked them what it said if he had left one. So I'm not pretending to know. I take on faith that his family were sure of his intentions if they bothered to let me know in the first place.

Ignorance and faith. Those are wonderful criteria on which to base one's thinking.

In reality, no one is stupid. In reality, we're all just victims of circumstances or we're simply ignorant. Yet this doesn't stop us from comparing the actions of others with our own and how we expect others to behave.

Unless something is wrong with your brain, that's pretty much universal. Welcome to humanity. We make judgments, we get angry, we sometimes think other people are stupid. You and I both.

"Blah blah blah, everyone's the same, everyone's just like me, yadda yadda yadda." Assertion isn't evidence. This is getting so repetetive, I'm not even going to respond to this ridiculous assertion any further.

Saying that one shouldn't speak in generalities is pointless.

Speaking in generalities isn't the problem. Coming to conclusions about specific things based on generalities is a problem. Expecting other people to behave according to what one thinks "everybody" else does is just ludicrous.

You can't speak in specific terms about much in this world.

Exactly. But that doesn't make any "generalities" correct.

Many of the decisions we make in our lives are based on generalities.

That doesn't make them correct or optimal, or the converse. It just means they were based on insufficent information.

Humans generally behave in a certain way.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Guessing about someone's behaviour based on generalities is doing so based on insufficient information. Why do you think that is reliable?

Humans generally share the same set of emotions and the same emotional frailties.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Guessing about someone's emotions based on generalities is doing so based on insufficient information. Why do you think that is reliable?

Humans generally don't kill themselves.

Which is absolutely meaningless when someone does. What use is a fireman who shows up to a fire and says, "I don't understand, this house doesn't generally burn like that"? What use is a cop who refuses to arrest a suspect because "he doesn't generally kill people"- or worse, denies there is a crime because "people don't generally kill people"?

What makes my judgment or arrogance wrong?

That it is based on ignorance and preconception.

Of course I'm guessing. I never said I knew why this guy killed himself.

Then why do you feel you have enough information to make a value judgement about his motives?

11.1 per 100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Hey look! My assumptions were correct.

How does that statistic support your assumptions?

Oh, I'm sure most of us would be pressuring our local law enforcement authorities to give the murderer a medal.

Depends on who he killed. What if he shot up a halfway house for repeat sex offenders?

And there's you clinging to "most of us" again. Do you have any values of your own that are not based on what a majority of other people have thought first?

You don't know he was in pain. He might have been the happiest man alive when he pulled that trigger. He may have been told by god that he was ready to go to heaven, all he had to do was pull the trigger and the rapture would sweep up all the Christians on the earth and that he was chosen as the catalyst for that act.

Could be. It is my understanding that's what the Jonestown folk were told.

That's why I used the word "surmise". It's a fancy word for "guess".

See, you've made some judgment about his mental state based on what you have been told. It isn't the same as mine, but you have made a judgment. It's what we do.

No, that's not a "judgment", it is a hypothesis. I did not assign a value to the action, as you did.

Ah, what would a reasonable person think?

Don't know. Not psychic. Reasonable people have their own, unique premises often enough that even completely logical people will come to different conclusions.

Neither of us are making assertions about these people and who they are.

"They are idiotic" is an assertion about those people. Whether it "came from your gut" or not.

Sorry, if I find the suicide of others for reasons that I feel would not drive me to suicide to be stupid, that's how I'm programmed to react. I have standards for myself and I filter the actions of others against my own. When something doesn't mesh, it elicits a reaction.

The idea that anyone who does not think or act in the way you do or think you would is "stupid" implies arrogance. The fact that you do not, by your own admission, have enough information to come to a correct conclusion about the "reaction" you are having implies ignorance.

Further, that you now characterise this judgment as a "programmed reaction" contradicts your assertion that people's actions are all based on "decisions"

I am well aware that, if knowledge or circumstances were different, my judgments might change. They still might, but from where I stand now, most of the suicides I have known of seem stupid when compared to my expectations of the world. I don't pretend to know the motivations of those involved, but I still make judgments.

If you know your judgments are probably incorrect and you know they are based on a complete absence of facts, why make them at all? What this tells me is that your expectations of the world are flawed.

Maybe I'm proud, maybe I'm secretly ashamed that I made such a stupid statement earlier and I'm just trying to cover my own ass.

That seems to be the most reasonable hypothesis.

Opinions are simply opinions. If you feel that some opinions are not the same as others, you have made a judgment of two expressed opinions.

That is ludicrous. Stating that any two apples are unlikely to be identical doesn't say anything about two particular apples.

So you are oblivious as to whether or not most people commit suicide?

The question to which I responded thus wasn't about whether or not most people commit suicide. Your question was "Do you think that most people are driven to suicide at some point in their life?" Not every person "driven" to suicide succeeeds. I do not know how many have tried and failed.

Face it, some generalities can essentially be relied upon as fact in regards to everyday life.

Name one.

The facts seem to back up my general assumption that most people don't commit suicide.

The facts seem to indicate that most people do not succeed at suicide. You have no information on how many people attempted it. And most inportantly, "most people don't commit suicide" doesn't tell you fact one about the people who do.

I'm also reasonably certain that, in an effort to simply not agree with me, you were unwilling to play along and show that you will also rely on generalities and make judgments from time to time.

Show me some evidence that I do rely on generalities. Assertion isn't evidence.

Surely you were not ignorant of the fact that most people do not commit suicide. You're just attempting to be contrary now.

Nope. I'm trying to get you to see that "most people don't commit suicide" doesn't say one thing about the people who do.

If the majority of us attempted suicide, we wouldn't have survived as a species to reach this point.

Still having trouble understanding the difference between "attempted" and "succeeded", aren't we? As long as enough people survive the attempt, or reproduce before succeeding, there is nothing to indicate the species wouldn't continue.

It's reasonable to conclude that most people do not attempt suicide.

Not from the evidence you've presented, no.

Never said I know what any single person was thinking.

He wouldn't have made the voluntary act of suicide without deciding that it was a good course of action that beat out the alternative. Otherwise, he would have made a different choice.

That's amusing, contradicting yourself in the same pararaph.

I can only speak to my own opinions and known facts.

Your "facts" are few and far between, and most of them are not facts at all.

 

[Soapy Sam]

May I suggest that I feel you two are using the word "judgement" a little differently?
Piscivore's usage seems to be along the lines of "Conscious moral condemnation"
willhaven's usage is more akin to an almost reflexive conclusion (or opinion).

Piscivore says it is not his place to judge a suicide, yet it's clear he has made many judgements about willhaven. Or at least it seems clear to me - and to willhaven.

So Piscivore- do you agree you have (on the basis of your replies) made judgements about willhaven?
Because if not, then you really must be using the word quite differently.

ETA-

The severity of pain will change over time. The loss of a child drives some to suicide, for others it just makes them sad. It doesn't mean that the person who committed suicide loved their child any more, it just means that the one who didn't commit suicide was able to cope. They were stronger. The person who committed suicide was emotionally weaker.

I think the use of "weaker / stronger" is an oversimplification. "Luckier" might be nearer the truth.
Few people are so emotionally stable that after a trauma their stress response will taper off uniformly. People - all people- have moodswings and a person who might cope with even a major trauma can be pushed over the edge because of one unlucky moment when the means of self destruction is available.
I'm pretty stable, but I well recall one moment - after breaking up with a lover- when I found myself driving at well over 120mph, one finger on the wheel, with the thought that one twitch would stop the pain...
So I didn't do it. I laughed and went to see a friend and we got drunk. Point is that ten minutes earlier I might have twitched. Or if something else bad had happened that night, it might have been the last straw- yet 24 hours later it would scarcely have bothered me at all.

I guess that's my point really; that you can be mentally strong one day and a helluva lot more vulnerable the next- and that's a person with no measurable bipolarity or mental problems.
It seems pretty likely the man in the OP was not so lucky. He was on an edge to start with. It may well have been something you or I would see as trivial that tipped his hand. It may not be how he saw it.

I reckon not having guns laying around, or jumping in a car when seriously upset is likely a survival positive tactic.

 

[ProbeX]

My suggestion is a bit more basic: Willhaven might consider educating himself about mental illness before presenting himself as a mentalist on behalf of people with suicidal ideation.

 

[willhaven]

It's not rational, no. "Normal" is subjective and relative as to be meaningless- which is where I think you stumble. You display what seems to be a pronounced desire to fit everything into a pigeonhole that you may claim to understand it- hence your focus on "average", "general", and "normal".

Yet you have done the same thing. You do not believe it to be rational and you have formed an opinion about it. I'm not trying to convince anyone that my interpretation is the correct one. I was just giving my view.

Fine. Show me your evidence. What "behaviour" have you actually "observed"? Under what conditions?

I've only seen anecdotal behavior. I know relatively few people who have committed suicide. Of the people I know, I am unaware of any of their families or friends who have committed suicide. I don't see suicides on the news or read about them very often. Culturally, it strikes me as a rarity. There are many behaviors and things about the world that we can generally accept as facts given our simplistic observations. And really, the relative rarity of suicide doesn't really hold much weight in this argument. It's a bit of a tangent.

Maybe. I don't pretend to know. I cannot see the future, and I cannot tell you what "would" happen in any hypothetical circumstance. There are too many variables that I cannot take into account, and even more I probably don't even know I am not aware of.

That's a fair assessment.

What makes you "sure"? Because you do and you need to feel like you are an "average" human?

Because that's what an average human does. In many ways I am an average human, you can be expected to be an average human as well.

What makes it any of your business to judge him?

His existence and his story has become known to me so I judged him. This is a forum, so I posted my opinion.

Wiki:
"Some cognitive features may reflect global neurocognitive deficits in memory, attention, problem-solving, executive function ..."
"The executive system... is used by psychologists and neuroscientists to describe a loosely defined collection of brain processes which are responsible for... initiating appropriate actions and inhibiting inappropriate actions, and selecting relevant sensory information."

So only schizophrenics commit suicide? It may explain his situation, but it may not. I wonder how many suicide victims are schizophrenic.

You certainly seem to. "All emotional stress is reversible or manageable."

It doesn't mean each emotional stress is the same. The stress of miscalculating a stair step and the stress of watching a family member executed are not the same thing in terms of their impact. I never implied that they would be. Regardless, someone who takes a misstep and has that moment of shock in trying to find their footing is able to manage their emotional stress and take another step. One who has watched a family member being executed would likely suffer incredible emotional damage, but those who have suffered incredible emotional damage typically end up loving and laughing again. To some degree, all emotional stress is reversible or manageable for your average person.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true.

It's hard to be more true than true. Truer?

No without knowing anything about him and his situation, no. It is not any of my business to judge him.

Yet you previously judged him to have seemed to be in pain. How can you judge if you don't know?

I find it is unfortuante that he apparently suffered so much. I'm not going to weep for him. There's to much pain in the world for me to bleed for everyone.

See, you have indeed made a judgment of the situation, though it is different from mine.

Not really, no. This guy was not in my monkeysphere.

The above quotes speak differently.

No, I do not have "some general feeling" about other people killing themselves. The suicide rate for the US in 2005 was 11 people per 100k. That's about 90 a day. That's too much for me to get myself worked up about.

But you do have a general feeling about this specific case, as evidenced above. You have made some judgment about his character or about the situation. If you were made aware of 10 of the suicides that happen every day and a rough outline of how and possibly why they happened, you would make a judgment about each of them. That's what your brain does.

No, I dont. You do. stop confusing yourself with everybody else.

I am not them. I did not live their life, I don't know what they suffered. Their reasons are theirs, and none of my business. Maybe their reasons would not be suficient for me (I don't know that either, not having been in thier position) but that is irrelevant, as they were likewise not me.

Yet you have made a judgment above. It may not be final, but you see it as unfortunate and you have considered his emotional suffering. You have had a reaction to his story, though not the same as mine.

I didn't say you thought you were smarter than me. I said you overestimate your own intelligence, in that you seem to beleive you know what others think.

Given what I see in the world, I can be pretty sure that many of us share some behaviors and some expected societal norms. I don't believe it to be egotistical to have expectations of the world and the people around me.

An opinion which you continue to demonstrate is foolish and ignorant.

I find suicide to be foolish from my point of view. If you don't like it, fine.

Completely irrelevant. Why is everything with you a comparison to other people? The only relevant assement of your intelligence is whether you are smart enough to know what other poeple think. There is no eidence whatsoever this is the case, there is evidence that instead, the reverse is true, and yet you keep making claims to know what "everyone" thinks.

That's "idiotic".

We all generalize and have expectations. It's not idiotic nor should it be considered mind reading.

Celebrating the fact that you base your opinions on argument from ignorance doesn't really help you look any less a fool.

Why would I feel like a fool? It's my opinion. I'm not trying to convince you that the guy was an idiot. I'm not even sure he was. I don't know enough to say. I can say that I generally find cases of suicide to seem like stupid acts. It's just my opinion.

"Entitled" by who?

By m-m-me.

Don't pretend to speak for me. You haven't the slightest idea what I do or how I think. I am not you, no one else is you. Whatever emotional need you are serving by assuming and insisting "everyone" is just like you does not make it correct.

Many people are like me in many ways. One of the ways we are most alike is in our most basic brain functions. Filtering new data against previous experiences is pretty basic.

Assertion is not evidence.

Assertion is not evidence.

Yet you still make judgments about men you've never met who have apparently committed suicide. Seems I am right and you are not.

A "response" is not a "judgement". "Hey, that's a car" is a response, and about all that your avatar gets. Were you trying to make some kind of statement? Your location? "Raliegh, they talked about that town on 'Andy Griffith' all the time. I think it has something to do with the tobacco industry, too. Is that on the coast or not? Bet it is humid there. And buggy."

Were you expecting something else?

No, just pointing out that even the slightest form of input gets your mental wheels turning. If you are told of a story of a religious man with a pregnant wife committing suicide, you filter that data against your previous experiences and expectations and you make some kind of judgment.

I never knew they referred to Raleigh in The Andy Griffith Show, though some of your connotations with Raleigh I also shared. It's just a difference in the data we filter against.

It's almost getting pathetic. What is driving this emotional need you have to think everyone is just like you?

Because in many ways we are all alike. The more general you get, the more people are the same. We are all made of many small cells. We don't all drive pink cars. Most of us don't commit suicide. Almost every single one of us is constantly making judgments about the world and the people around us every single day.

That's not pathetic. It's the truth.

Nothing "obvious" about it at all. You are assuming every action is a rational, reasoned one. So not true.

If he was schizophrenic, there was still a thought process that pushed him to suicide. Whether due to dysfunction of the brain or whether he thought it was a good idea of his own volition. His brain thought it to be the course of action he should take and he took it. The fact that he recently suffered emotional trauma would lead me to believe that he was grief stricken.

No. At best I could guess, and probably be wrong.

A judgement of actions about which you know very little.

But I know enough to make a judgment. You have also made a judgment. The amount of knowledge we have doesn't seem to have much impact on whether or not we make judgments. Unless of course we have zero information, in which case this thread would not exist and we would not be having this conversation.

What thief? Are all thieves equivilent?

What murderer? Are all murderers equivilent?

What adulterer? Are all adulterers equivilent?

I never said all thieves murderers and adulterers are equivalent and I never said that all suicides are equivalent either. But we do have a general case. There is a connotation with most thievery and a connotation associated with most murder that seem to be shared by most people.

Depends on the murderer. Why do you pretend to know what I would "mind" when I myself think the hypothetical is too vague to reliably guess how I would react? Are you deluded enough to imagine you know me better than I know me?

Let's give a more specific case then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Couey
I think this guy was an S.O.B. His acts were terrible and I'm glad he was caught and convicted.

I'm reasonably certain you'd agree with those assessments of mine.

Why does it matter why I care? And who said I did? Maybe you're just an easy bone to chew on for my own entertainment.

Well, keep chewing.

And "many" is enough to equal "all" in your mind, isn't it? Just as long as you've got a majority, you can just shove it all into a pigeonhole and canvince yourself you've got a good bead on things, right?

That's pretty much how the brain works. Until we find a need to inspect things more closely and make more informed decisions, we walk around in a sea of generalities that we take as facts because they generally tend to be true.

Don't try and drive in Arizona, then, my friend.

Still, most vehicles will not cut you off or pull into you and cause a wreck. If they did, no one would get to work or get anywhere for that matter. Of course there are instances that break the general case. When driving, you are supposed to have a route of escape for instances where another driver makes a mistake.

Good. Admitting you are only guessing is the first step.

I never said I knew specific motivations of anything. I know what I was told and I know generally what I see form the world around me. The general case is usually true and that's enough to get by until I am forced to modify my perceptions based on need.

Or maybe they were wrong. Or maybe they were believing what made them feel better. Or maybe they ididn't think it was any of your business and just told you something so you'd piss off. I don't know.

Those are all possibilities.

Ignorance and faith. Those are wonderful criteria on which to base one's thinking.

You are ignorant of many things and take even the basics of everyday life on faith. So am I.

"Blah blah blah, everyone's the same, everyone's just like me, yadda yadda yadda." Assertion isn't evidence. This is getting so repetetive, I'm not even going to respond to this ridiculous assertion any further.

Maybe if you stop responding to those assertions I'll stop pointing out that it's true and just assume that you've given up because you understand that it is indeed true. Generally speaking anyway.

Speaking in generalities isn't the problem. Coming to conclusions about specific things based on generalities is a problem. Expecting other people to behave according to what one thinks "everybody" else does is just ludicrous.

When walking down the street, it's quite likely (based on where you live) that you have an expectation that those around you will not attack you and leave you bleeding in the gutter. It's not ludicrous to have that expectation and to expect others to behave that way. Why? Because that's what you generally experience.

If you lived in a war zone and a very high percentage of people were murdered on the street, your expectations of the behavior of those around would be different. Again, you make some judgment based on your expectations and previous experiences.

Exactly. But that doesn't make any "generalities" correct.

They are generally correct except in some cases. Otherwise they would not be correct. They are not always correct, but they generally are.

That doesn't make them correct or optimal, or the converse. It just means they were based on insufficent information.

Agreed. But if you can generally expect something to be true, you can avoid wasting time delving into it every time you encounter it.

Maybe this bee colony will allow me to steal the honey. Or I can just assume from my previous experience that all bee hives are dangerous and I should avoid the damn things.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Guessing about someone's behaviour based on generalities is doing so based on insufficient information. Why do you think that is reliable?

It generally is reliable. If it were generally unreliable, I would invert my general case to be the opposite. I never said my generalities were hard facts that are irrefutable. They just tend to be true in most cases, therefore I treat them as fact except when I need to take them on a case-by-case basis.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Guessing about someone's emotions based on generalities is doing so based on insufficient information. Why do you think that is reliable?

Emotions are harder to gauge than behavior. But, if you learned that a friend of yours had just had his bank account hacked and all of his money drained, you would probably expect that he were angry. He may not be, but in the general case, the person who has been wronged may tend to be angry. It's a human emotional reaction that most of us share. Generally speaking of course.

Which is absolutely meaningless when someone does. What use is a fireman who shows up to a fire and says, "I don't understand, this house doesn't generally burn like that"? What use is a cop who refuses to arrest a suspect because "he doesn't generally kill people"- or worse, denies there is a crime because "people don't generally kill people"?

What use is a fireman who doesn't understand that fire will burn them? What use is a police officer who doesn't understand that a man running at them and screaming waving a knife might be dangerous?

A fire that doesn't burn the way a fireman expects would cause him to change his tactics. It may surprise him and kill him. This is why procedures are invented. We find out what works in the general case and apply it to our lives.

That it is based on ignorance and preconception.

I could be right. You don't know. There are many things of which you and I are ignorant that we take as fact. We don't have the time or capacity to know all things, or even all relevant things.

Then why do you feel you have enough information to make a value judgement about his motives?

I haven't. I said that I find most suicides to be idiotic and that, given most circumstances that I am aware of that lead to suicide, I would likely find his to be idiotic as well. Call that a tentative value judgment pending more information.

How does that statistic support your assumptions?

They don't support my assumptions about his motives or my value judgment. They do support my statement that most people do not commit suicide. Which, as I pointed out earlier, is a bit of a tangent in this discussion.

Depends on who he killed. What if he shot up a halfway house for repeat sex offenders?

That doesn't generally happen. If he shot up a house full of newborn babies, I don't think the town as a whole would be rushing to make the murderer the new mayor. Call it a hunch.

And there's you clinging to "most of us" again. Do you have any values of your own that are not based on what a majority of other people have thought first?

If you fit into society, chances are the things you believe are shaped and molded by your interactions with others.

One value I hold is that marriage is unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. The majority of people don't seem to think the same thing, so I guess I am an outlier on that issue.

No, that's not a "judgment", it is a hypothesis. I did not assign a value to the action, as you did.

You said it was unfortunate. You believe he was probably sad. You have made at least two judgments about the man.

"They are idiotic" is an assertion about those people. Whether it "came from your gut" or not.

I guess it is an assertion. Though, to be fair, I didn't assert it to be true for this particular man or for all cases of suicide.

The idea that anyone who does not think or act in the way you do or think you would is "stupid" implies arrogance. The fact that you do not, by your own admission, have enough information to come to a correct conclusion about the "reaction" you are having implies ignorance.

You have also made judgments, it doesn't mean you are arrogant. It just means you have made a judgment.

Further, that you now characterise this judgment as a "programmed reaction" contradicts your assertion that people's actions are all based on "decisions"

I'm a determinist. I don't think their reactions are programmed, but I do believe us to be slaves to the stimulus we receive an how we reconcile it against what we have experienced. We still make decisions, but I feel that given the exact same stimulus, you will get the exact same response.

So I couldn't help but think suicide to be idiotic in most cases.

If you know your judgments are probably incorrect and you know they are based on a complete absence of facts, why make them at all? What this tells me is that your expectations of the world are flawed.

All expectations that are not true are flawed. If all of my judgments had a high likelihood of being incorrect, I would have suffered some horrible accident in childhood and would not have survived years of driving in California as I did.

I may be incorrect about how I will feel if I know the facts of this case. I'm open to being wrong. I just tend to find suicide to seem like a stupid act when I am given such information.

That seems to be the most reasonable hypothesis.

Yet you have made a judgment without full knowledge. Is your statement that I am proud and foolish true? You can't be sure. If it's arrogant to make statements that may not be true, why did you make that statement? Could it be because you rely on your instincts and generalities and make judgments based on incomplete evidence just like everyone else? I think so.

That is ludicrous. Stating that any two apples are unlikely to be identical doesn't say anything about two particular apples.

I never said that opinions are equivalent. Different opinions are indeed different. And chances are, two apples will be different.

It still doesn't make my opinion wrong. Just different. Now if my opinion were false and I stated it to be fact, that would be wrong. I never said my opinion of suicide was fact. It's just my simplified view.

The question to which I responded thus wasn't about whether or not most people commit suicide. Your question was "Do you think that most people are driven to suicide at some point in their life?" Not every person "driven" to suicide succeeeds. I do not know how many have tried and failed.

I don't know how many were driven to attempt suicide either. If someone is driven to suicide, they have succeeded right? If someone is driven to attempt suicide, they may or may not succeed.

I can surmise from my experiences and looking at the world around me that most people probably don't attempt suicide. Most people certainly aren't driven to the point where they succeed.

Regardless, this is a part of that tangent which isn't really leading anywhere. Hell, this whole conversation is starting to go in circles like the religion thread.

Name one.

Rainfall will not set you on fire.

Show me some evidence that I do rely on generalities. Assertion isn't evidence.

Do you think that rainfall will kill you if you get caught in it?

Not from the evidence you've presented, no.

So we have a society of mostly suicidal humans who just can't get the job done?

I know, we can't know for sure. No evidence, etc. But something tells me that most people do not seriously attempt suicide.

That's amusing, contradicting yourself in the same pararaph.

How is it a contradiction? I don't know what exactly he was thinking. I do know that his brain and motor reflexes thought it necessary to put a gun to his head and kill himself. That much is evident. Whether it was due to emotional stress, heroism or brain dysfunction, I don't know.

Your "facts" are few and far between, and most of them are not facts at all.

I never said my posts were filled with facts. One fact I do know though, we both make judgments based on incomplete evidence and we both accept things to generally be truths even though we cannot know every case.

 

[Piscivore]

May I suggest that I feel you two are using the word "judgement" a little differently?
Piscivore's usage seems to be along the lines of "Conscious moral condemnation"

"Judgement" is his word. I feel that he needs to add the word "value" preceeding it to accurately reflect the activity he describes.
"A judgment that assigns a value, as to an object or action; a subjective evaluation."
"a personal opinion about something based on an individual's beliefs and not on facts which can be checked or proved"

He has admitted that his "judgements are reflexive, unconcerned with fact, and based on ignorance. That seems to be contrery to the usual definition of "judgement" alone:
"The act or process of judging; the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation."

Piscivore says it is not his place to judge a suicide, yet it's clear he has made many judgements about willhaven. Or at least it seems clear to me - and to willhaven.

Like what?

So Piscivore- do you agree you have (on the basis of your replies) made judgements about willhaven?

In the sense of a "value judgement" in the same manner in which he has assigned a subjective value to the character of the suicide? No. I have tried to evaluated the claims he has made using logic and evidence. I do not feel that is the same thing at all.

I have called his actions foolish- according to his own use of the term and the evidence of his own statements- but I do not think I have cast any aspersions on his character. If I have given that impression I apologise.

Because if not, then you really must be using the word quite differently.

Possibly. I should have corrected his usage right off, I suppose, but one hesitates to be overly pedantic. I did make a point of stating clearly that his "judgements" were subjective in nature, and not based on reason.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The trick in debate, I find, is not to "correct the other side's usage", but to agree a shared vocabulary.
I would consider pretty well all of your responses to him as "judgements". I think he does too. When you question his "right" to make judgements he responds that you seem to find it easy to make judgements about him, while denying him the same right.

Seriously, you may see this as pedantry on my part, but I think you really are talking past each other with relation to making judgements- which is the bulk of the debate.
(I don't honestly feel, by the way, that adding "value" as a prefix makes any difference. When one holds an opinion, or makes a distinction, a judgement has taken place.)

 

[willhaven]

I would consider pretty well all of your responses to him as "judgements". I think he does too. When you question his "right" to make judgements he responds that you seem to find it easy to make judgements about him, while denying him the same right.

Exactly. I'm not making judgments about this man I don't know that are also condemnations. I have made judgments about others who have committed suicide and I figure my judgments about this man who killed himself with a pregnant wife will probably follow in line with those I have judged previously. I have said that I find suicide to be stupid and that my first instinct was to think that this appears to be a stupid act. His motivations remain to be seen, but I may very well judge them to be idiotic given a more clear picture.

I even pointed out that judgments are not necessarily condemnations, it's just what we do when we receive information. I formed an opinion and expressed it about those who commit suicide for many reasons. Reasons which I weigh as worthy or unworthy on my own behalf.

Piscivore has made judgments about both me and the man who has committed suicide without having complete evidence. No one does. The only way to have all of the evidence is to be the man who took his own life.

Yet Piscivore says that the act was unfortunate (I believe this was the term) and that the man was probably in emotional pain. He doesn't know these to be facts, yet he believes them anyway. He is unwilling to see that we all use generalizations and incomplete conclusions in our lives every day, simply because he does not agree with mine.

Some more judgments below.

I'm betting financial shenannigans at work. He was probably close to or already pinched.

I wonder if his aggressive preaching was his way of trying to cope with whatever pain he was experiencing.

I think that's pretty likely.

He does not know these to be true, yet has formed some kind of opinion or ideas anyway. He has filtered the facts as we know them against his previous experiences and has come to some tentative conclusions.

I'm not quite sure what to think. I'd be hard pressed to find a situation where a man who kills himself to have his pregnant wife come home to find his corpse was not, in my view, an idiot.

We can go round and round arguing my perspective all you like. It will still be my perspective, and we will all still make judgments of everything we encounter. It doesn't make them truths, just judgments and opinions.

My suggestion is a bit more basic: Willhaven might consider educating himself about mental illness before presenting himself as a mentalist on behalf of people with suicidal ideation.

When did I claim to speak on behalf of suicidal people? I just gave my opinion. I never claimed to have supernatural powers either.

Just saying.

 

[Piscivore]

The trick in debate, I find, is not to "correct the other side's usage", but to agree a shared vocabulary.

You're right, we should have done that. He is clearly using "judgement" in two different ways while implying they are the same thing.

I would consider pretty well all of your responses to him as "judgements".

How so?

When you question his "right" to make judgements

Where did I do that?

he responds that you seem to find it easy to make judgements about him, while denying him the same right.

i made no "judgements" (in any sense of the term) about him in any way. I have applied evidence to his arguments. That's worlds away from calling everyone who does something I don't like an "idiot".

Seriously, you may see this as pedantry on my part, but I think you really are talking past each other with relation to making judgements- which is the bulk of the debate.

You're right. His usage is fraught with equivocation.

(I don't honestly feel, by the way, that adding "value" as a prefix makes any difference. When one holds an opinion, or makes a distinction, a judgement has taken place.)

You don't see a difference between holding an opinion based on evidence and reason, and an opinion based on purely emotional hyperbole and hasty generalisation?

 

[Soapy Sam]

You're right, we should have done that. He is clearly using "judgement" in two different ways while implying they are the same thing.

Perhaps you might both drop the word "judgement" , replacing it with "opinion"?

How so?

Because they seem that way to me. My definition of the term leans more towards his. I can't answer you better than that. I suspect a rather profound difference in background assumptions here.

Where did I do that?

What makes it any of your business to judge him?

i made no "judgements" (in any sense of the term) about him in any way. I have applied evidence to his arguments. That's worlds away from calling everyone who does something I don't like an "idiot".

You say you made no judgement about him. He says he makes no judgement that is condemnatory of the man in the OP. We seem to be going in circles here. This is what I meant about different usage.
He has not said that anyone doing something he dislikes is an idiot. He has said that until shown reason to rethink, his default conclusion from observation is that the reasons people commit suicide tend to be trivial.
My POV is that he is correct, but that it is the very triviality (of the final trigger) that tells us the person was already stressed to his limit at that point.
He describes that as mental weakness, which is true insofar as a mentally tougher person might not have done it- but I think simple circumstances can conspire against the toughest. We all have bad moments. If the means (to suicide) is readily to hand, some will use it who would have survived had it not been to hand. (This is my principal objection to having firearms in the home). There is a case here at the moment of two teenage girls who (together) jumped from a bridge.It seems this was planned. They even planned it together. (Of course there exists a possibility one was skylarking on the rail and fell and the other fell trying to save her, but it's a big bridge. Teenaged girls rarely go walking there). I know no details, but I think, given what I know of teenage girls, I could come to some likely conclusions. One of these is that the reason which seemed so important to them probably would not had they been just a few years older. You may see that as "judgemental". I see it as an opinion, which is probably correct.

You're right. His usage is fraught with equivocation.

With respect, I think it's clear enough to him. I';d repeat that whose usage is wrong is less important than both debaters using the same words to mean the same things. That still leaves all our mental baggage to cause confusion enough.

You don't see a difference between holding an opinion based on evidence and reason, and an opinion based on purely emotional hyperbole and hasty generalisation?

So you do agree these are purely matters of opinion?

Yes I would see that difference. I'd say though that the evidence and reasons here are about equally divided. wellhaven's view is that he should form default opinions based on his experience of life and refine his final conclusion as he learns more about individual cases. He supposes, based on his observation of others, that everyone else does the same. I tend to agree with that, though I agree with you that this process will not always lead each of us to the same conclusion.

If you do not go through life this way, I'd be surprised- as it seems would he.

Congratulations to both, by the way, on keeping a civil tone in what is clearly a rather emotive debate.
By the way- I copy/pasted the quote tags, but missed the end bracket, so all were wrong, hence the multiple edits.

 

[Cainkane1]

Then you haven't much imagination.

As a former fundie, I would love nothing better than to be able to comfort myself with the thought that my dead mother, who is now a collection of ash and bone bits in a cardboard box in my sister's bedroom closet is, instead, enjoying her afterlife on a soft, fluffy cloud in heaven.

But she's not. And I've fought suicide for two years now without that comfort, which would help immensely. I'm not saying I'm about to kill myself. I am saying that my inability to believe fantasy is reality would be contributory--largely contributory--were I ever to do so.

Imagine harder. And climb off that high horse.

Don't ever do anything rash to yourself like suicide. I and the rest of the forum would miss you too much. I know the reasons behind some of your pain. Do us all a favor and keep a stiff upper lip. Take the pain. Remember. Your worth every second you are here with us.

 

[Cainkane1]

And apparently no respect for the individual who committed suicide, or his family. I can't bestow upon you the common sense required to see the obvious regarding the OP. If you think loaded questions about God wanting him back home as a reason for his suicide are appropriate, so be it. I would hope that as a matter of decency the ideologues on this site could put away their swords for once and have some compassion. I suppose I was wrong.


Let me be abundantly clear. I have never, and will never expect to see a thread entitled "A skeptic committed suicide" in tandem with questions intimating that his skepticism or lack of belief played a part in his demise. Does my query still confuse you or is this double standard that hard to see?

I read this as a serious and concerned question about the poor unfortunate man who killed himself from someone who has no respect for religion.
And apparently no respect for the individual who committed suicide, or his family. I can't bestow upon you the common sense required to see the obvious regarding the OP. If you think loaded questions about God wanting him back home as a reason for his suicide are appropriate, so be it. I would hope that as a matter of decency the ideologues on this site could put away their swords for once and have some compassion. I suppose I was wrong.

Why should I respect him? He had no respect for me or anyone else who was uninterested in his religious drivel. This doesn't mean I had no compassion for him and it most particularly doesn't mean I have no respect or compassion for his widow and his unborn child or for his grieving parents.

Quote:
How would you phrase such a question?
Let me be abundantly clear. I have never, and will never expect to see a thread entitled "A skeptic committed suicide" in tandem with questions intimating that his skepticism or lack of belief played a part in his demise. Does my query still confuse you or is this double standard that hard to see?

Quote:
How would you phrase such a question?
Let me be abundantly clear. I have never, and will never expect to see a thread entitled "A skeptic committed suicide" in tandem with questions intimating that his skepticism or lack of belief played a part in his demise. Does my query still confuse you or is this double standard that hard to see?

Why wouldn't you expect to see a thread about a skeptic committing suicide? Mental illness is no respecter of a persons beliefs or the lack thereof. I made my post because a fundamentalist committed suicide. Had a skeptic done him or herself in I may or may not have made a post about it. You're taking this too personally and you're wrong.

 

[Piscivore]

Perhaps you might both drop the word "judgement" , replacing it with "opinion"?

I think it would be even more helpful to detail exactly what was meant by each instance the term is used.

Because they seem that way to me. My definition of the term leans more towards his.

Which one? He uses it two ways.

You say you made no judgement about him.

I haven't. Show me otherwise.

He says he makes no judgement that is condemnatory of the man in the OP.

"He is an idiot" seems pretty condemnatory to me. Others in this thread seem to see it that way too. That's a fallacy (or more correctly, a combination of fallacies).

He has not said that anyone doing something he dislikes is an idiot.

Sorry, no. He specifically said, and repeated several times, that people who commit suicide for reasons he doesn't understand or does not think would be sufficient for him, are idiots. Do you want me to quote each time he has done? It's in nearly every post he's made in this thread.

He has said that until shown reason to rethink, his default conclusion from observation is that the reasons people commit suicide tend to be trivial.

My POV is that he is correct, but that it is the very triviality (of the final trigger) that tells us the person was already stressed to his limit at that point.

Since what is "trivial" is subjective, what it tells me is that whatever the reason, it likely wasn't trivial to the suicide. Will's way treats a subjective value- "trivial"- as an objective fact. That's a fallacy, because he's repeatedly said that he'd approve of the suicide were the reasons more signifigant (which he implies is preferable) in his estimation.

He describes that as mental weakness, which is true insofar as a mentally tougher person might not have done it- but I think simple circumstances can conspire against the toughest. We all have bad moments. If the means (to suicide) is readily to hand, some will use it who would have survived had it not been to hand. (This is my principal objection to having firearms in the home). There is a case here at the moment of two teenage girls who (together) jumped from a bridge.It seems this was planned. They even planned it together. (Of course there exists a possibility one was skylarking on the rail and fell and the other fell trying to save her, but it's a big bridge. Teenaged girls rarely go walking there). I know no details, but I think, given what I know of teenage girls, I could come to some likely conclusions. One of these is that the reason which seemed so important to them probably would not had they been just a few years older.

Exactly why coming to any conclusions about their character is ludicrous. Yet will, without even knowing about these girls, has already concluded they are "idiots".

You may see that as "judgemental".

I do not, not in the same sense as Will's "judgement", no. You have not come to any conclusions above, and not about the characters of the young ladies.

I see it as an opinion, which is probably correct.

Maybe correct. It is just speculation, and you have not claimed it to be anything but speculation.

With respect, I think it's clear enough to him. I'd repeat that whose usage is wrong is less important than both debaters using the same words to mean the same things.

Or a particular debater using the same words to mean the same thing consistently.

So you do agree these are purely matters of opinion?

Sure, but not all opinions are equal. "It's just my opinion" is a common refrain from those unwilling or unable to use facts as the basis for their opinions.

And yes, everyone has the "right" to be as incorrect as they please.

Yes I would see that difference. I'd say though that the evidence and reasons here are about equally divided. wellhaven's view is that he should form default opinions based on his experience of life and refine his final conclusion as he learns more about individual cases.

That's the definition of "prejudice". If my "experience of life" is that black people are lazy, shiftless criminals and I use that as a "default opinion" that would be indefensible, wouldn't it?

He supposes, based on his observation of others, that everyone else does the same.

Which is a fallacy. In fact, nearly all of Will's argument employs some variation on this to some degree.

I tend to agree with that, though I agree with you that this process will not always lead each of us to the same conclusion.

Let alone a correct conclusion. As I said a few times, if one is unconcerned with being correct and just wants to feel like one knows something, this is a fine strategy.

If you do not go through life this way, I'd be surprised- as it seems would he.

At one time I did, yes. Until I became a skeptic.

Congratulations to both, by the way, on keeping a civil tone in what is clearly a rather emotive debate.

Huh. Nothing emotional about it on my end. I just see someone making some rather egregious errors in his thinking, and trying to get him to see them too.

ETA: Missed one:

When you question his "right" to make judgements...

Where did I do that?

What makes it any of your business to judge him?

I'm sorry, I can see how you might read that question in that way. I wasn't asking him what "right" he had to judge the man (we touched on that briefly when I asked him about his usage of the word "entitled" which seemed to imply an authority granting him permission to make such judgments. He responded that he himself was the authority, an answer which, as a Discordian I subjectively approve )

No, my question there, and elsewhere, was to find out why he thought it necessary to come to any conslusion about the character of the man, why he seemed to feel a need to pigeonhole him into some category or another.

 

[Cainkane1]

Eh, don't worry about it. Just be happy he won't be bothering you anymore.

My problem is this. He won't be doing anything anymore. He won't be supporting his widow and child. He won't be a son to his parents. Yes I felt relieved but I'm not selfish and cruel enough to be happy that he did something so selfish and foolish.

 

[willhaven]

Perhaps you might both drop the word "judgement" , replacing it with "opinion"?

Good call. I'll drop judgment and use opinion instead.

I think it would be even more helpful to detail exactly what was meant by each instance the term is used.

Which one? He uses it two ways.

To be fair, you used the term judgmental first and I only picked up on it and used it afterward. I didn't really think about the definition of the world and didn't really mean for it to be used in any different way than I would have used "opinion" or something similar.

Judgment may be too strong a word.

I haven't. Show me otherwise.

Quoted from a single post.

Is there anything besides pure arrogance and a delusional estimation of your own intelligence leading you to think you know this?

No it isn't. This is just yet another example of you trying to project your own thinking on "everyone" in order to legitimise it. To yourself, maybe? To me? Who are you trying to convince you are "average"?

But you're just guessing. And that's enough to make it a fact for you, isn't it?

Gee, ya think? Which guy would you want on your jury- this guy, or the one that just stupidly thinks what "most people" do?

Again, trumpeting your own propensity for hasty generalisation in certain instances does not excuse it. You are just confirming the foolishness of your own behaviour.

Clearly. You even seem proud of such foolish behaviour.

No. You don't get to legitimise your own foolish actions by pretending that I do them too.*

So you are destined to make arrogant judgments based on sheer ignorance?

And of the man in question.

I know nothing of his character, no. I can surmise that he was troubled and in pain, bit even that is jsut going by third-hand accounts of his behaviour.

*

"He is an idiot" seems pretty condemnatory to me. Others in this thread seem to see it that way too. That's a fallacy (or more correctly, a combination of fallacies).

Where did I say "he is an idiot?" I said that I find people who commit suicide for various reasons to be idiots in my opinion. I have said that I may very well think this man is an idiot if I ever learn his motive. I never came to a conclusion, though I do still have a general opinion about suicide. I'd be surprised if I openly called the man an idiot, though you may have implied within your own mind that I have.

Since what is "trivial" is subjective, what it tells me is that whatever the reason, it likely wasn't trivial to the suicide. Will's way treats a subjective value- "trivial"- as an objective fact. That's a fallacy, because he's repeatedly said that he'd approve of the suicide were the reasons more signifigant (which he implies is preferable) in his estimation.

I never said my opinion of suicide or what I find to be trivial is a fact. Is that a strawman I smell?

Exactly why coming to any conclusions about their character is ludicrous. Yet will, without even knowing about these girls, has already concluded they are "idiots".

I haven't concluded anything, though I still have an opinion about suicide. Maybe if I learned the details about every suicide I would feel differently.

As for the bridge girls, I am unfamiliar with the case. A double suicide may indeed be idiotic. Especially if, for instance, they had both been expelled from school or had gotten a bad grade. If they had been brutally beaten and molested at their homes, my opinion might change.

Sure, but not all opinions are equal. "It's just my opinion" is a common refrain from those unwilling or unable to use facts as the basis for their opinions.

Not all opinions need to be factual. I never implied that my opinion of suicide was a fact. The only things I claim to be facts (if I recall correctly) are that most people do not commit suicide and that the overwhelming majority of us come to tentative conclusions about everything around us until we get more evidence to get a clearer picture.

That's the definition of "prejudice". If my "experience of life" is that black people are lazy, shiftless criminals and I use that as a "default opinion" that would be indefensible, wouldn't it?

By definition, it would appear as though we all have some prejudices. Whether or not they are hostile, adverse, detrimental or damaging can vary.

If your experience of life involved getting regularly beat up by black people when you walked home every night and you happened to see a group of black people walking toward you at night and you did not avoid them, I'd say you'd be an idiot not to be prejudiced. It all depends on the extent at which you rely and cling to those prejudices.

Which is a fallacy. In fact, nearly all of Will's argument employs some variation on this to some degree.

Let alone a correct conclusion. As I said a few times, if one is unconcerned with being correct and just wants to feel like one knows something, this is a fine strategy.

I have come to no conclusion. Look at my usage of the word in this thread. "Tentative conclusion" (attributed to you) and "incomplete conclusion"(attributed to just about everyone).

No, my question there, and elsewhere, was to find out why he thought it necessary to come to any conslusion about the character of the man, why he seemed to feel a need to pigeonhole him into some category or another.

Again, I haven't come to a conclusion yet. I do have general opinions about suicide and a belief that I will probably have the same opinion about this man if his motives are similar to most other suicides.

 

[willhaven]

And just for clarification.

I'm not trying to convince you that the guy was an idiot. I'm not even sure he was. I don't know enough to say. I can say that I generally find cases of suicide to seem like stupid acts. It's just my opinion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I read this as a serious and concerned question about the poor unfortunate man who killed himself from someone who has no respect for religion.
And apparently no respect for the individual who committed suicide, or his family. I can't bestow upon you the common sense required to see the obvious regarding the OP. If you think loaded questions about God wanting him back home as a reason for his suicide are appropriate, so be it. I would hope that as a matter of decency the ideologues on this site could put away their swords for once and have some compassion. I suppose I was wrong.

Why should I respect him? He had no respect for me or anyone else who was uninterested in his religious drivel. This doesn't mean I had no compassion for him and it most particularly doesn't mean I have no respect or compassion for his widow and his unborn child or for his grieving parents.

Quote:
How would you phrase such a question?
Let me be abundantly clear. I have never, and will never expect to see a thread entitled "A skeptic committed suicide" in tandem with questions intimating that his skepticism or lack of belief played a part in his demise. Does my query still confuse you or is this double standard that hard to see?

Quote:
How would you phrase such a question?
Let me be abundantly clear. I have never, and will never expect to see a thread entitled "A skeptic committed suicide" in tandem with questions intimating that his skepticism or lack of belief played a part in his demise. Does my query still confuse you or is this double standard that hard to see?

Why wouldn't you expect to see a thread about a skeptic committing suicide? Mental illness is no respecter of a persons beliefs or the lack thereof. I made my post because a fundamentalist committed suicide. Had a skeptic done him or herself in I may or may not have made a post about it. You're taking this too personally and you're wrong.

You could also have entitled the post
A lawyer committed suicide
A husband committed suicide
A father committed suicide

You chose "A fundy committed suicide." That tells us a bit about you, and your motive, which I think is what Blutarsky was getting at. In your defense, if most of your interactions with this man were his going on about his faith, or conversations based on that, I can understand why your primary characterization of his was "fundy" rather than the other valid categories of person that he fits into.

DR

 

[Piscivore]

To be fair, you used the term judgmental first and I only picked up on it and used it afterward. I didn't really think about the definition of the world and didn't really mean for it to be used in any different way than I would have used "opinion" or something similar.

Great. Do you want to address the numerous fallacies which soley constitute your "opinion"?

Quoted from a single post.

Is there anything besides pure arrogance and a delusional estimation of your own intelligence leading you to think you know this?

But you're just guessing. And that's enough to make it a fact for you, isn't it?

Gee, ya think? Which guy would you want on your jury- this guy, or the one that just stupidly thinks what "most people" do?"

Gee, ya think? Which guy would you want on your jury- this guy, or the one that just stupidly thinks what "most people" do?

These are all questions, designed to elicit information. Not judgments, opinions, or conclusions.

No it isn't. This is just yet another example of you trying to project your own thinking on "everyone" in order to legitimise it.

Again, trumpeting your own propensity for hasty generalisation in certain instances does not excuse it. You are just confirming the foolishness of your own behaviour.

Clearly. You even seem proud of such foolish behaviour.

No. You don't get to legitimise your own foolish actions by pretending that I do them too.

These are evaluating the strength and quality of your behaviour. Not the content of your character.

I know nothing of his character, no. I can surmise that he was troubled and in pain, bit even that is jsut going by third-hand accounts of his behaviour.

This is a GUESS. It even says it is a guess. A guess is not a judgement, opinion, or conclusion.

In any case, let's put this distraction to bed. Even if I have or in the future will make prejudicial judgements, it means nothing regarding the quality or factuality of your own argument. This whole derail is nothing more than tu quoque and non sequitor.

It is not that a "judgement" or "opinion" exists that is the problem. It is the fallacious basis on which it is formed- just the same as the "opinion" that ID is more valid than evolution, or the "opinion" that a large undiscovered biped roams the Pacific Northwest, or the "opinion" that black people are inferior.

Not all opinions need to be factual.

No indeed. Very often they aren't. What baffles me is why one would continue to defend one so clearly unfactual.

By definition, it would appear as though we all have some prejudices. Whether or not they are hostile, adverse, detrimental or damaging can vary.

Tu quoque again. "I may be racist, but so's everyone I know".

If your experience of life involved getting regularly beat up by black people when you walked home every night and you happened to see a group of black people walking toward you at night and you did not avoid them, I'd say you'd be an idiot not to be prejudiced. It all depends on the extent at which you rely and cling to those prejudices.

What if the person was only assaulted once? Or only repeatedly assaulted by only one black man? Or had never been assaulted at all, but only intimidated by a black guy he knew once? Is that okay too?