Does Raising Suicide-Awareness actually help anyone?

[Soapy Sam]

You should. You're really rather good at it. Say on.

 

[MikeSun5]

And of course, your twisting words out of context and inventing strawman contradictions instead of supporting your claims with logic, couldn't possibly have anything to do with it

Opinions are not claims. I think I've kept the two pretty separate.

The goal isn't to hold hands and pretend we embrace each other's values, but to support a position by data and logic.

What exactly is your postion?

Actually, that _would_ help in about half the cases, but telling someone that he's a complete failure and a "selfish anti-social dick" for it, sure won't get them to get help. .... If that means the "stop trying to guilt-trip some people who are already depressive" option, yes, pretty much that's it.

This proves to me that you have not been reading the thread, but simply finding stuff that makes you angry and responding to it. I've said many times that I wouldn't say anything remotely like that to a suicidal person. But of course, you'll ignore that again because it gives you ammo.

It's also amusing/ironic that you accuse me of being emotional when you're the one so obviously upset and tossing insults around. All I did was call you a nihilist for pretty much saying that suicide is the only way out for most suicidal people.

It was a question to establish exactly how far does that obligation to others go, since that was the excuse you waved around.

There. Wasn't that easy? You could have saved yourself another one of my crazy prom-queen rants if you had just typed this first instead of some extreme anecdote. Unfortunately, the answer would be an opinion.

Except, of course, nobody was asking you to adopt or understand any particular mentality except your own.

What the hell are you even talking about? Adopt my own mentality?

Where do you get this cockeyed notion that we all act, think, and are like everyone else around us, in spite of the individual lives we live?

Where did I say we were all the same? I guess I get the notion from the same magic hat you pulled this little slice of crazy from.

I had a lot more to say, but I edited it. You deserve to hear it, though. Shame you won't.

Yes, a complete shame. What is the point of posts like this?

 

[Complexity]

What is the point of posts like this?

To let you know how much your posts have pissed some of us off.

 

[luchog]

To let you know how much your posts have pissed some of us off.

s/pissed off/hurt people

 

[HansMustermann]

Mike, the questions about exactly how does your system of obligations to the rest of humanity work, are there a few pages back. At least have the decency to not pretend it's something new. You could have answered it 2 pages ago instead of all the BS about what my philosophy must be, and all the other non-sequiturs.

All I'm asking is exactly how does that system work. In a way that isn't special pleading, i.e., doesn't _only_ apply to suicide. Exactly when and how does that duty to society override free will?

If a formalized version doesn't come easy, ok, I'll take examples. I've extended a hand asked some questions to see what would your system say about controlled, well defined situations. Call it reverse-engineering it if you will. If you have a coherent system, it should be easier to just answer it than to do all this twisting and dodging and emotional act. Are you planning to start any time soon?

You accused me of "shooting down" your points. Guess what? If they make logical sense, I wouldn't be able to shoot them down.

Again, I'm not even asking it to make sense by my "nihilism" or the other non-sequiturs and ad-hominems you've postulated. I'm just asking that it's a coherent system and not special pleading. You can do that, can't you?

But ok, I'm willing to pretend that you only noticed it now. Are you actually going to start answering, or just do more of this BS speculation about what HansMustermann's goal might be?

You only used BS dodges so far. Starting with the dodge that you're not actually demanding something, you're just judging people as "selfish anti-social dicks" if they fail to do it. Guess what? It's still a demand. You can't pass that judgment on people failing to do X unless there was an obligation that they do X.

All I'm asking is that you explain, in your own moral/philosophical/etc system not mine, exactly how far that obligation extends. You don't need to understand nihilism or anything. You just need to know exactly WTH _you_ are expecting of people.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Regarding suicide awareness, Dr Jack's story is being told on film, with Al Pacino as Dr Jack.

I will definitely see this film.

Dr Jack's initial approach seemed to be on a merciful end, but the story is more complicated than that. There is no question that he attracted the attention of witch hunters. (Perhaps thanks to some of the legal advice he got, which helped his story go national, and beyond).

Dr Jack's premise, from what I recall, was that people ought to be allowed to do what Complexity has mentioned in this thread: end it if they've reached a good stopping point, and do so while being in as much control as is practicable.

DR

 

[MikeSun5]

To let you know how much your posts have pissed some of us off.

s/pissed off/hurt people

I'm sorry. That was not my intent, just a side effect.

Mike, the questions about exactly how does your system of obligations to the rest of humanity work, are there a few pages back.

How does my "system of obligations to the rest of humanity" work? I don't have a "system." This is something you made up in your mind. As far as obligations to the rest of humanity, I believe in the sanctity of life and good manners. It's not so hard to comprehend.

At least have the decency to not pretend it's something new.

Like me asking you about your position on the matter, right? Do you have one? What would you suggest to combat suicide? Or should it not even be fought because nothing is effective? What is your position?

All I'm asking is exactly how does that system work. In a way that isn't special pleading, i.e., doesn't _only_ apply to suicide. Exactly when and how does that duty to society override free will?

Now you're drifting off topic. I don't have a "system," and we're talking about suicide. There are lots of duties to society that override free will.

You accused me of "shooting down" your points. Guess what? If they make logical sense, I wouldn't be able to shoot them down.

You're right... caring about yourself and others is not logical when it comes down to it. Self-preservation and the preservation of our species makes perfect sense though. Suicides make up a small percentage of our species' death, which is why I called suicide abnormal. Suicidal feelings and depression are obviously way more prevalent than the actual act. Feelings and depression are not "logical."

Starting with the dodge that you're not actually demanding something, you're just judging people as "selfish anti-social dicks" if they fail to do it. Guess what? It's still a demand. You can't pass that judgment on people failing to do X unless there was an obligation that they do X.

I believe the dead people had an obligation to themselves and the people that cared about them. How far it extends is obviously debateable.

If someone doesn't live up to YOUR expectations (say you have a bad experience with an incompetent employee somewhere), you WILL pass judgement on them. You might say they're lazy, rude, or whatever. By doing this, you are not somehow transformed into the worldwide representative of all people who think that person incompetent. You simply had an expectation that wasn't met and you didn't like it. Well, I don't like people who give up. With all the programs in place and treatment available, there are ways out. Suicide doesn't have to be an option, no matter how much you'd like it to stay on the table.

Some people disagree with that sentiment. Knowing that does not piss me off or hurt me, though. I just can't understand why some people here seem to be saying suicide should be an option worth considering simply because we can.

You just need to know exactly WTH _you_ are expecting of people.

It looks more like you need to know what I'm expecting of people. What I expect from people is a far cry from what actually happens. I expected you to converse without insults. Mea culpa.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Regarding suicide awareness, Dr Jack's story is being told on film, with Al Pacino as Dr Jack.

I will definitely see this film.

Dr Jack's initial approach seemed to be on a merciful end, but the story is more complicated than that. There is no question that he attracted the attention of witch hunters. (Perhaps thanks to some of the legal advice he got, which helped his story go national, and beyond).

Dr Jack's premise, from what I recall, was that people ought to be allowed to do what Complexity has mentioned in this thread: end it if they've reached a good stopping point, and do so while being in as much control as is practicable.

DR

DR,
You may be interested in the book "Unplugged: Our Right to Die in America" by William Colby. He has been a lawyer for people whose loved ones are in permanent vegetative states who have had to fight to have life support removed. It's a very moving and compelling book.

http://www.amazon.com/Unplugged-Reclaiming-Our-Right-America/dp/0814408826

 

[HansMustermann]

How does my "system of obligations to the rest of humanity" work? I don't have a "system." This is something you made up in your mind. As far as obligations to the rest of humanity, I believe in the sanctity of life and good manners. It's not so hard to comprehend.

Right. But those 3 points of yours were a bit more than good manners. I wouldn't count contributing more to humanity among good manners by any accepted definitions, for example. We don't count someone's playing WoW for a total of 1 years of one's life and counting, instead of doing overtime, as bad manners.

At any rate, you must believe someone has such an obligation to contribute something, if that's an argument you use. You can't pass harsh judgment on someone for doing something they weren't under any obligation to.

Now you're drifting off topic. I don't have a "system," and we're talking about suicide.

So it was just special pleading after all?

There are lots of duties to society that override free will.

Right. So, since you're the one who started the argument based on the existence of those obligations. I don't think I'm unreasonable if when your argument is a case of "X => Y" I'm asking first to know at least what X is. You can't handwave in a conclusion without even defining the premise.

You're right... caring about yourself and others is not logical when it comes down to it. Self-preservation and the preservation of our species makes perfect sense though. Suicides make up a small percentage of our species' death, which is why I called suicide abnormal. Suicidal feelings and depression are obviously way more prevalent than the actual act. Feelings and depression are not "logical."

Homosexuality is also a minority and technically "abnormal". I don't think that makes it necessarily something to forbid.

I believe the dead people had an obligation to themselves and the people that cared about them. How far it extends is obviously debateable.

But that is actually the crux of the problem. Before judging if one falls on this side or the other side of the line, you must at least first define where that line is. At least approximately.

If someone doesn't live up to YOUR expectations (say you have a bad experience with an incompetent employee somewhere), you WILL pass judgement on them. You might say they're lazy, rude, or whatever. By doing this, you are not somehow transformed into the worldwide representative of all people who think that person incompetent. You simply had an expectation that wasn't met and you didn't like it.

Nevertheless, in doing so, I was essentially giving them an obligation that (in my judgment) they failed to fulfill. I thought they had an obligation to know this or that to do their job.

It's also a pretty easy one to explain. You can even put in numbers exactly how much you expect an employee to know, or to produce in a day, or exactly what kind of politeness rules you had in mind.

And even if one isn't inclined to compile some formal minimum knowledge requirements for a competent employee, it shouldn't be too hard to at least answer some questions about where some hypothetical cases fall. Should a Java programmer know that variables declared in the constructor aren't visible in another method? (True story: someone called me to ask why it doesn't work.) Yes they should, and I'll call someone grossly incompetent if they don't. Scope is a basic concept. Should they know how to write a JCA implementation? Nah, it's not something you do every day, and they can google it if they need to.

It _is_ a system of expectations and obligations.

Well, I don't like people who give up. With all the programs in place and treatment available, there are ways out. Suicide doesn't have to be an option, no matter how much you'd like it to stay on the table.

But actually giving up is a valid option, and often enough the smart option, in almost everything else.

One of the first things I learned in Go is never to throw away good pieces trying to save pieces which can't be saved. "I'm not giving up on that group" is the worst possible mentality to have. An even moderately competent player will wipe the floor with someone who doesn't know when to give up.

And the same applies to everything else. Those guys who end up paying 450,000 to some scam artist or 419 scammer, did just that: didn't believe in giving up. They already threw away some money, so they'll keep throwing good money after bad, because they're not giving up. They'll forge ahead and get their big payment. Yeah, right.

In reality the rational choice is to compare the losses and payoffs and likelihood thereof in all the available options. Including giving up.

Some people disagree with that sentiment. Knowing that does not piss me off or hurt me, though. I just can't understand why some people here seem to be saying suicide should be an option worth considering simply because we can.

I can't see why any particular option or situation would be above even considering.

 

[luchog]

I'm sorry. That was not my intent, just a side effect.

How does that fit in with your claim of "good manners"?

As far as obligations to the rest of humanity, I believe in the sanctity of life and good manners. It's not so hard to comprehend.

Yes, it is. "Sanctity" is a religious term. Are you a religious person? If not, then why use a religious term so idiosyncratically? How are you defining it?

Now you're drifting off topic. I don't have a "system," and we're talking about suicide. There are lots of duties to society that override free will.

What are they, and what with what justification? Do you consider the collective to be more important than the individual? Does the individual exist to serve the collective, or if not, where is the balance point? What is the justification for this value judgement?

I believe the dead people had an obligation to themselves and the people that cared about them. How far it extends is obviously debateable.

Again, what is the justification for assuming such an obligation, beyond your personal preference?

Well, I don't like people who give up. With all the programs in place and treatment available, there are ways out. Suicide doesn't have to be an option, no matter how much you'd like it to stay on the table.

You're making multiple unsupported value judgements here. What is "giving up", why is it bad, and why does suicide qualify?

Some people disagree with that sentiment. Knowing that does not piss me off or hurt me, though. I just can't understand why some people here seem to be saying suicide should be an option worth considering simply because we can.

Or perhaps because their value system is different from yours; and holds individual self-determination as the highest value.

 

[MikeSun5]

Okay... give and take, fellas. I'm answering your questions, and you're intentionally ignoring mine. I'm guessing it's so you can shoot down things without taking a definite stance.

What is your position on suicide? Okay? Not okay?

How would you suggest it's combated? Or would you suggest it shouldn't be?

 

[luchog]

Okay... give and take, fellas. I'm answering your questions, and you're intentionally ignoring mine. I'm guessing it's so you can shoot down things without taking a definite stance.

What is your position on suicide? Okay? Not okay?

How would you suggest it's combated? Or would you suggest it shouldn't be?

I've already given my stance; but I'll enumerate it more explicitly here.

I oppose it on what I freely admit are predominantly religious grounds. Unlike others, I make no pretense that they are anything but.

The only objective grounds for opposition that I can see are mental illness, and fulfillment of individual, familial, or social obligations freely entered into by the individual; where the failure to fulfill said obligations would cause undue hardship for others (eg. dependent children or disabled spouse).

Naturally every rational attempt should be made to convince a suicidal person to seek treatment; but should not per se form grounds for depriving an individual of self-determination (ie. incarceration or forcible treatment). Even in the case of mental illness, the individual's self-determination should be paramount, and deprivation of this should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of mental competence, not an a priori judgement based on idiosyncratic values.

And as personal background, I've known five people, not family members, who have committed suicide; at least two because of degenerative illnesses (Huntington's and Schizophrenia). I've been subject to ideation since early childhood; and have made one attempt.

Now, are you actually going to answer my questions, or continue to evade them?