Forum Settings
Forums
New
Pages (12) « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 7 » ... Last »
Feb 3, 2013 11:00 PM

Offline
Feb 2005
13572
You know what, forget it.

Have fun kid. Watch out for those tentacles.
Feb 3, 2013 11:04 PM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Baman said:
Have fun kid. Watch out for those tentacles.
Mmhmm. Deep seas is my territory. Shallow water fish beware.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 3, 2013 11:22 PM

Offline
Feb 2012
1678
katsucats said:
Baman said:
katsucats said:
That's not the meaning of 'meaning'. Meaning is always agent-dependent/subjective, even if the subject is God.
Eeer, nope. Check a dictionary. Or would you argue the "meaning" of, say, a number, is subjective?
Do you mean the 'definition' of a number? The 'meaning' of life refers to a different semantic concept than the 'definition' of life. You are conflating two different definitions of the same word -- a semantic fallacy.


Meaning:
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning
1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?

A meaning or purpose for something can exist without the agent perceiving it.

I think at this point you're just avoiding admitting you're wrong on [yet another] debate and of course as usual doing your best on wiggling your way out.

katsucats said:
1. Who are they?
2. Nature is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Did you really need to ask those questions, especially number 1? This just makes it apparent that you're running out of logic to use for your argument.

1. The person(s) committing suicide or deciding to commit suicide of course. But you already knew that.
2. Yes, and that's exactly why I was referring to the nature of humans. It is in our nature to preserve our own lives. We humans have strong self-preservation mechanisms that make it difficult for us to commit suicide. But again, you already knew that.

So now, yet again: To go against that to such a degree that one would commit suicide instead of handling life's problems by living through it can only stem from a 'quitting/giving up' thought process.

But since you need to be educated on why this thread's topic question is actually far from being even somewhat intellectually profound, here are a few things for you to read up on concerning suicide psychology:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2314382/

Example excerpt:
Source: Page 239
"Suicide is man's great retreat from life. He has recourse to it when he feels no longer able to endure suffering in the present or pain in the future. It is therefore a failure of adaptation and constitutes a final regression from reality.

You should read on beyond that as well as it further elaborates on that based on observation of how people react to certain situations and which ones can cause thoughts of suicide and the thought process behind them.

Now if you will, it's 2 AM and time for Bianca to give me my late night blowjob. Have a good night and keep those thoughts of suicide aside to give way for more positive thoughts young grasshopper.
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"



Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly.
Feb 3, 2013 11:23 PM

Offline
Oct 2009
4800
@katsucats & citizeninsane

OK, since I know I can sometimes suck at conveying arguments, let me try to start again and go from start to finish.

Let’s start with the original statement:

there is no meaning to life.

Let’s define what this statement means.

meaning
the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of thisintrusion? (dictionary.com)

So katsucats’ statement is saying, “there is no end, purpose, or significance of life”

Katsucats’ statement is claiming that there is no objective meaning of life. Objective meaning either exist or do not exist. They do not rely on the ability of the sentient being to discern them. The objective meaning of life can exist without us understanding it. And both katsucat's and I have agreed that unconditional imperatives can (hae the potential to) exist

Let me try to give an example of how this works. Let’s start with katsucat’s statement – “there is no meaning to life” – for this statement to be true, anything necessary for some objective meaning of life to exist, cannot exist. Concepts of God are bases for an objective meaning of life. Various concepts of God, including those that provide bases for objective meaning of life to, are not falsifiable. Therefore, this already shows how katsucats’ statement is logically unsound by itself.

Bloodcaliber pretty much puts what I am trying to say consisely:
On the other hand, RandomChampion is saying that it can exist but what I think you might not be understanding with what he's trying to say is, he's implying that the "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent phenomena. He's implying it's possible that there might be a systematic, completely scientific, non-agent-dependent, albeit not discovered, reason for life in the multiverse.

To be honest guys, your definition of meaning is basically the definition only in the parameters and methods of existentialism (check meaning (existential) on wikipedia if background info is needed). So, if you are using that definition of “meaning” to support the claim that “there is no meaning to life” is logically sound, then you would have to argue that the parameters of existentialism are absolute, which - I’m sure you’ll agree with me - are not.

A completely logically-sound statement can, at the most, only claim that there might not be meaning of life. This is why the question of “what is the meaning of life” has been asked and discussed for centuries and not merely dismissed. Nobody would bother with such a question if the answer was logically (by logically, I mean the application of logic at the moment) “there is no meaning to life”. I know this isn’t an argument, but think about it guys. You think that such an apparent logical truth, able to be argued by some guys on an anime forum on the internet (no offense to anybody here) would evade many of the greatest minds of history? No it wouldn’t. Like I said, you argument stems from the existential belief.
RandomChampionFeb 3, 2013 11:57 PM
Feb 3, 2013 11:45 PM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Bloodcalibur said:
katsucats said:
Baman said:
katsucats said:
That's not the meaning of 'meaning'. Meaning is always agent-dependent/subjective, even if the subject is God.
Eeer, nope. Check a dictionary. Or would you argue the "meaning" of, say, a number, is subjective?
Do you mean the 'definition' of a number? The 'meaning' of life refers to a different semantic concept than the 'definition' of life. You are conflating two different definitions of the same word -- a semantic fallacy.
Meaning:
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning
1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?

A meaning or purpose for something can exist without the agent perceiving it.

I think at this point you're just avoiding admitting you're wrong on [yet another] debate and of course as usual doing your best on wiggling your way out.
If you're arguing for definition #1, then you'd be right. But that's typically not what 'meaning' means when we say 'meaning of life' -- for that, we use definition #2. (Even if you want to claim victory with definition #2, it would be an empty victory. The definition/meaning of life is not what me and RandomChampion are contesting.)

Now as to definition #2: Please explain for us how exactly can there be objective significance?

Bloodcalibur said:
katsucats said:
1. Who are they?
2. Nature is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Did you really need to ask those questions, especially number 1? This just makes it apparent that you're running out of logic to use for your argument.

1. The person(s) committing suicide or deciding to commit suicide of course. But you already knew that.
Since you said you weren't generalizing, then you mean to say you understand the state of mind of every suicidal that ever existed, and that they all have the same state of mind? You must surely find this absurd yourself.

Bloodcalibur said:
2. Yes, and that's exactly why I was referring to the nature of humans. It is in our nature to preserve our own lives. We humans have strong self-preservation mechanisms that make it difficult for us to commit suicide. But again, you already knew that.
Explain those self-preservation mechanisms. Difficulty is relative and pointless to bring up in an argument.

Bloodcalibur said:
So now, yet again: To go against that to such a degree that one would commit suicide instead of handling life's problems by living through it can only stem from a 'quitting/giving up' thought process.
Wrong.

Bloodcalibur said:
But since you need to be educated on why this thread's topic question is actually far from being even somewhat intellectually profound, here are a few things for you to read up on concerning suicide psychology:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2314382/

Example excerpt:
Source: Page 239
"Suicide is man's great retreat from life. He has recourse to it when he feels no longer able to endure suffering in the present or pain in the future. It is therefore a failure of adaptation and constitutes a final regression from reality.

You should read on beyond that as well as it further elaborates on that based on observation of how people react to certain situations and which ones can cause thoughts of suicide and the thought process behind them.

Now if you will, it's 2 AM and time for Bianca to give me my late night blowjob. Have a good night and keep those thoughts of suicide aside to give way for more positive thoughts young grasshopper.
This is pointless. 3 things you should admit to:
  1. Any attempt to specify the state of mind of a whole group of people is a generalization.
  2. There is no definable ideal state of mind, so all action can be considered "failures of adaptation". Rather, there is no epistemic way of knowing.
  3. Characterizing suicide as "giving up" assumes a prescription that we should aim to live in life. Your "self-preservation mechanism" shows that you are committing the naturalistic fallacy, confusing a natural description for a prescription.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 3, 2013 11:48 PM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
Trapalicious said:
one-more-time said:
I'm not going to grieve because somebody's in pain and they commit suicide. That is something to celebrate, they're free from a sadistic, idiotic game.


I hope you're aware that makes you sound like a fucking moron.

Please, explain.

I might sound like one to people driven by emotions not their mind.
LUL
Feb 3, 2013 11:51 PM

Offline
Dec 2010
2795
Bloodcalibur said:

Example excerpt:
Source: Page 239
"Suicide is man's great retreat from life. He has recourse to it when he feels no longer able to endure suffering in the present or pain in the future. It is therefore a failure of adaptation and constitutes a final regression from reality.


Amazing how close that excerpt comes to what I was suggesting eight pages ago.
Feb 3, 2013 11:52 PM

Offline
Oct 2009
4800
katsucats said:
If you're arguing for definition #1, then you'd be right. But that's typically not what 'meaning' means when we say 'meaning of life' -- for that, we use definition #2. (Even if you want to claim victory with definition #2, it would be an empty victory. The definition/meaning of life is not what me and RandomChampion are contesting.)

Now as to definition #2: Please explain for us how exactly can there be objective significance?


Since I used definition #2 in my post, I'd like to point out that A) it says "or" B) it can mean significance in the "grand scheme/narrative of things"/what-have-you

But yea, no agent perception required.
RandomChampionFeb 3, 2013 11:55 PM
Feb 4, 2013 12:00 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
RandomChampion said:
@katsucats & citizeninsane

OK, since I know I can sometimes suck at conveying arguments, let me try to start again and go from start to finish.

Let’s start with the original statement:

there is no meaning to life.

Let’s define what this statement means.

meaning
the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of thisintrusion? (dictionary.com)

So katsucats’ statement is saying, “there is no end, purpose, or significance of life”

Katsucats’ statement is claiming that there is no objective meaning of life. Objective meaning either exist or do not exist. They do not rely on the ability of the sentient being to discern them. The objective meaning of life can exist without us understanding it. And both katsucat's and I have agreed that unconditional imperatives can (hae the potential to) exist.
Unconditional imperatives are necessarily random.

RandomChampion said:
Let me try to give an example of how this works. Let’s start with katsucat’s statement – “there is no meaning to life” – for this statement to be true, anything necessary for some objective meaning of life to exist, cannot exist. Concepts of God are bases for an objective meaning of life. Various concepts of God, including those that provide bases for objective meaning of life to, are not falsifiable. Therefore, this already shows how katsucats’ statement is logically unsound by itself.
No conception of God that I know of requires objective meaning of life to exist. Such a weak conception would reason itself out of existence, and surely cannot be claimed to be omnipotent with such an ominous condition, thereby contradicting the presupposition in the first place. As I've stated numerous times but both you and Bloodcalibur love to ignore: A third-party imposed rule does not make an unconditional imperative; it commits the naturalistic (is-ought) fallacy. In fact, it could even be argued that an omnipotent God must exclude the possibility of an objective morality, as explained by Plato: Euthyphro dilemma.

RandomChampion said:
Bloodcaliber pretty much puts what I am trying to say consisely:
On the other hand, RandomChampion is saying that it can exist but what I think you might not be understanding with what he's trying to say is, he's implying that the "meaning of life" does not have to be an agent-dependent phenomena. He's implying it's possible that there might be a systematic, completely scientific, non-agent-dependent, albeit not discovered, reason for life in the multiverse.
If you're trying to argue something like "the phenomenon of life arose out of Evolution", then I agree. If you're saying something like "the subject qualia of living has an objectively defined goal/imperative", then I'd almost like to say that's self-apparently incomprehensible, for all the reasons I've restated multiple times, and I'm not going to do it again.

RandomChampion said:
To be honest guys, your definition of meaning is the definition only in the parameters and methods of existentialism (check meaning (existential) on wikipedia if background info is needed). So, if you are using that definition of “meaning” to support the claim that “there is no meaning to life” is logically sound, then you would have to argue that the parameters of existentialism are absolute, which, I’m sure you’ll agree with me, are not.
Existentialism is a philosophy and it's not one that I follow.

RandomChampion said:
A completely logically-sound statement can, at the most, only claim that there might not be meaning of life. This is why the question of “what is the meaning of life” has been asked and discussed for centuries and not merely dismissed. Nobody would bother with such a question if the answer was logically (by logically, I mean the application of logic at the moment) “there is no meaning to life”. I know this isn’t an argument, but think about it guys. You think that such an apparent logical truth, able to be argued by some guys on an anime forum on the internet (no offense to anybody here) would evade many of the greatest minds of history? No it wouldn’t. Like I said, you argument stems from the existential belief.
You're right, it isn't an argument. But you're wrong that my argument stems from Existentialism. My argument stems from truth, and Existentialism also stems from truth. The difference is Existentialism comes up with the wrong solution. Know what Existentialism is (e.g. read Nietzche) before you try to say that that's where my argument comes from.
katsucatsFeb 4, 2013 12:30 AM
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 12:02 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
RandomChampion said:
katsucats said:
If you're arguing for definition #1, then you'd be right. But that's typically not what 'meaning' means when we say 'meaning of life' -- for that, we use definition #2. (Even if you want to claim victory with definition #2, it would be an empty victory. The definition/meaning of life is not what me and RandomChampion are contesting.)

Now as to definition #2: Please explain for us how exactly can there be objective significance?
Since I used definition #2 in my post, I'd like to point out that A) it says "or" B) it can mean significance in the "grand scheme/narrative of things"/what-have-you

But yea, no agent perception required.
Explain how there can be significance without a person (qua agent) to interpret it. (Hint: God as an agent fails the specification.)
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 12:42 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
sydrian said:
everyone has a goal, you have many goals maybe you just dont know it yet but thats what it means to be alive you find yourself and fight tooth and nail for your dreams.
Your right its not about how long your alive but what you accomplish and the possibilities are endless you should do what you want for as long as you can.Leave your mark on the world and shape it into whatever you want.
Materialistic goals are merely temporary in nature and their significance are subjective. The value for accomplishments --yes, even death-- are subjective to the individual. There's no proof that length of life correlates with value (it is possible that a shorter life has higher value than a longer life).

sydrian said:
when your body gives up and its time for you to leave you you should think back and remember that it wasnt because you didnt have the mental strength or ambition to go on that your life is ending but because your bodies giving up. And that is what you make peace with.
What if someone has the ambition to determine his own death and the mental fortitude to carry it out? An author writes the ending to his book -- he isn't forced to continue a story until he tires of it.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 12:43 AM

Offline
Sep 2012
3
because #YOLO XD
And what do you mean life doesn't have an objective goal? Speaking biologically, the goal to our life is to reproduce. In a less literal sense the goal to our lives can be what ever we wan't, and if you don't have any goals or values then you're already not living. Life is a beautiful thing, while the purpose of it may not be tangible, it is indeed there.
Feb 4, 2013 12:46 AM

Offline
Jul 2012
1153
Why is suicide bad?

1) Because GOD doesn't want you cluttering up hell.

2) Because you live in a society, one cannot fend for themselves, the society (i.e the people) in which you reside (good or bad) had a hand as to why you're alive today. They had to sacrifice some aspect of their lives so that you may be able to live (whether you wanted to or not). Now your role should be to return something back to the society (i.e the people). Escaping this responsibility (i.e sucide), makes you nothing more than a selfish bastard.

Here is analogy: You already ordered and ate the food delivered, you can't just run away without paying the bill.
[url=http://myanimelist.net/animelist/Num1dad_Asura]
[/url]
Click Here for Sig source
Feb 4, 2013 12:48 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
DuckMan5148 said:
And what do you mean life doesn't have an objective goal? Speaking biologically, the goal to our life is to reproduce.
Biology describes something that exists, it doesn't tell you what should be.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/hume/guillotine/

DuckMan5148 said:
In a less literal sense the goal to our lives can be what ever we wan't, and if you don't have any goals or values then you're already not living. Life is a beautiful thing, while the purpose of it may not be tangible, it is indeed there.
Those are subjective goals: goals that you decide for yourself for no real reason whatsoever. They are arbitrary, and while you might feel like you want to climb Mount Everest (or anything else), someone might feel like he wants to determine when he dies. Like an opinion, neither answer is more valid than the other.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 1:00 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Num1dad_Asura said:
1) Because GOD doesn't want you cluttering up hell.
Quote where in the Bible (or your respective religious text) does it say suicide will make you go to Hell. (Hint: It doesn't.)

Num1dad_Asura said:
2) Because you live in a society, one cannot fend for themselves, the society (i.e the people) in which you reside (good or bad) had a hand as to why you're alive today. They had to sacrifice some aspect of their lives so that you may be able to live (whether you wanted to or not). Now your role should be to return something back to the society (i.e the people). Escaping this responsibility (i.e sucide), makes you nothing more than a selfish bastard.

Here is analogy: You already ordered and ate the food delivered, you can't just run away without paying the bill.
That's absurd. Ordering food explicitly determines a contract. Not only does life not, but the value of life is intangible -- the mere act of living does not contribute any tangible value to society. Secondly, people who have invested in your life have succeeded; the caveat to life is that it occurs until it doesn't. No one would pressure a cancer patient to pay his dues. A person's death does not devalue his life up to that point.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 1:09 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
sydrian said:
katsucats said:
sydrian said:
everyone has a goal, you have many goals maybe you just dont know it yet but thats what it means to be alive you find yourself and fight tooth and nail for your dreams.
Your right its not about how long your alive but what you accomplish and the possibilities are endless you should do what you want for as long as you can.Leave your mark on the world and shape it into whatever you want.
Materialistic goals are merely temporary in nature and their significance are subjective. The value for accomplishments --yes, even death-- are subjective to the individual. There's no proof that length of life correlates with value (it is possible that a shorter life has higher value than a longer life).

What about dream i mean isnt there something special to life doing what you love? I mean like the love of your life its not about what your doing its why you do it right? Like the personal value it holds You take inspiration from the things around you and you apply it because you should want to dont you?
sydrian said:
when your body gives up and its time for you to leave you you should think back and remember that it wasnt because you didnt have the mental strength or ambition to go on that your life is ending but because your bodies giving up. And that is what you make peace with.
What if someone has the ambition to determine his own death and the mental fortitude to carry it out? An author writes the ending to his book -- he isn't forced to continue a story until he tires of it.
It would be sad if someone wanted to end there life, authors write stories and end them so they can move on the characters in the story all continue to exist in there worlds and the author in his, Then they go on to pursue something else another story another chapter in there life.
We are all narrators of our own story; we are not beholden to other characters' expectations whether it's about death or following your dreams. If your parents expect you to live on, then they easily expect you to be a doctor, marry early, or stay faithful to the church or whatever. So if the raison d'etre of life is to not disappoint anyone, then we should be consistent and slave to everyone else' demands.

A good story has a succinct introduction, development, turn, and conclusion. A good author knows when to aim for dramatic tension and comedic relief, but he also knows when to put down the pen.

A story doesn't lose value when it ends. Its value might even increase if it ends well.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 1:15 AM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
DuckMan5148 said:
because #YOLO XD
And what do you mean life doesn't have an objective goal? Speaking biologically, the goal to our life is to reproduce.

Is that all you can - meme nature? I don't think that I have to remind that nature has no brain. Replication for the sake of replication, I don't think that anybody with a rational mind would say that it's an objective goal.

In a less literal sense the goal to our lives can be what ever we wan't, and if you don't have any goals or values then you're already not living.

More cliché, please. Where's the "Every cloud has a silver lining" or "What matters is the journey, not the goal!", lol.

Life is a beautiful thing, while the purpose of it may not be tangible, it is indeed there.

It sure is from a perspective of person living in a civilized society, where you have access to Internet, clean water, electricity, etc, but that is not how majority is living.

Num1dad_Asura said:
Here is analogy: You already ordered and ate the food delivered, you can't just run away without paying the bill.

More accurate analogy would be:
You're dragging a person to a journey without his consent, and there is no need for him to go on that journey. Putting this person in debt is a bit.. unethical, don't you think?
one-more-timeFeb 4, 2013 1:19 AM
LUL
Feb 4, 2013 1:19 AM

Offline
Dec 2010
2795
@Katsu: Can I ask this without the implication that I want to discuss this? Is arguing on MAL merely a contest of who has the most free time on their hands? I feel like you've been sitting at your computer all day, responding to each and every person who expresses their opinion. Jesus man, lol..
Feb 4, 2013 1:34 AM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
Sydrian, watch less TV, please.
LUL
Feb 4, 2013 1:36 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Legendre said:
@Katsu: Can I ask this without the implication that I want to discuss this? Is arguing on MAL merely a contest of who has the most free time on their hands? I feel like you've been sitting at your computer all day, responding to each and every person who expresses their opinion. Jesus man, lol..
Yeah. I've wasted the entire day. lol *sigh* The responsibilities of a thread creator. The sad part is no one brings me any food, clothing, or plumbing. I still have to pay the water bill.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 1:41 AM

Offline
Jul 2012
1153
katsucats said:
Num1dad_Asura said:
1) Because GOD doesn't want you cluttering up hell.
Quote where in the Bible (or your respective religious text) does it say suicide will make you go to Hell. (Hint: It doesn't.)


Num1dad_Asura said:
2) Because you live in a society, one cannot fend for themselves, the society (i.e the people) in which you reside (good or bad) had a hand as to why you're alive today. They had to sacrifice some aspect of their lives so that you may be able to live (whether you wanted to or not). Now your role should be to return something back to the society (i.e the people). Escaping this responsibility (i.e sucide), makes you nothing more than a selfish bastard.

Here is analogy: You already ordered and ate the food delivered, you can't just run away without paying the bill.
That's absurd. Ordering food explicitly determines a contract. Not only does life not, but the value of life is intangible -- the mere act of living does not contribute any tangible value to society. Secondly, people who have invested in your life have succeeded; the caveat to life is that it occurs until it doesn't. No one would pressure a cancer patient to pay his dues. A person's death does not devalue his life up to that point.


LOL.....OK he doesn't you cluttering wherever you think you're going.

Trust I am sure a cancer patient would know the importance of living a hundred times better than you. This cancer analogy you keep bringing up, you make it sound like this said cancer patient would give up and look at the clock for the end to come. From experience with a cancer victim myself, he did not just wait for the end to come, he wanted to make amends before the end because he realized how important it was to return back all the favors and debt he has left and cause as less burden as possible to the people around him when he left. So that one day in the future when the people that cared for him can say, "he was a great guy". Not doing this and committing suicide only will leave the people that looked and cared for you with guilt, suffering, and regret and only will a self-centered bastard commit this atrocious act. Since you mentioned the word "invest", remember for "rational people", All investment are made expecting a return (basics of economics) and this return is garnered through what is called "living", like it or not.

Remember your life from the moment you're born does not belong only to you.

This is all I'll say on the subject, I am moving on...........
[url=http://myanimelist.net/animelist/Num1dad_Asura]
[/url]
Click Here for Sig source
Feb 4, 2013 1:43 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
sydrian said:
Im saying you shouldnt give up on yourself, your probably a wonderful person
I'm not.

sydrian said:
Why cut it short before seeing everything.
Don't worry, I don't intend to.

sydrian said:
Cuz your never going to have a meaningful ending if there wasnt something wonderfull before it.
There's no point in a meaningful ending. Despite that one-more-time thinks it's cliche, what matters is the journey, not the destination. What's "wonderful" is a state of mind, not any actual event, which is why as long as the narration makes sense, the plot doesn't really matter.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 1:53 AM

Offline
Mar 2008
1373
Surprised that this is still going on. Easy to tell that people have become too sheltered and taken life for granted when they have to ask why voluntarily ending life is a bad thing.
Feb 4, 2013 1:56 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Num1dad_Asura said:
Trust I am sure a cancer patient would know the importance of living a hundred times better than you.
Appeal to anecdotes. You don't know the importance of living more than anyone -- you haven't lived a day in anyone else' shoes.

Num1dad_Asura said:
This cancer analogy you keep bringing up, you make it sound like this said cancer patient would give up and look at the clock for the end to come. From experience with a cancer victim myself, he did not just wait for the end to come, he wanted to make amends before the end because he realized how important it was to return back all the favors and debt he has left and cause as less burden as possible to the people around him when he left.
My analogy has to do with the reaction to someone's death, not the state of mind of the person dying.

Num1dad_Asura said:
So that one day in the future when the people that cared for him can say, "he was a great guy". Not doing this and committing suicide only will leave the people that looked and cared for you with guilt, suffering, and regret and only will a self-centered bastard commit this atrocious act.
The hypothetical of what happens after you die is just that... an egotistical fantasy. Your assumption that people would breathe a sigh of relief when someone dies of cancer as opposed to feeling suffering and regret when someone commits suicide is just silly, but of secondary importance. I'd like to know why you think people would feel any different when confronted with the fact of someone's death, but I doubt you could give me a clear answer that isn't born out of some misguided sense of morality.

Num1dad_Asura said:
Since you mentioned the word "invest", remember for "rational people", All investment are made expecting a return (basics of economics) and this return is garnered through what is called "living", like it or not.

Remember your life from the moment you're born does not belong only to you.
Living does not benefit anyone in any tangible way. Your predecessors, the ominous members of "society", do not own your life. You are not a slave on a metaphorical plantation. You are not beholden to other people's expectations for your career, your girlfriend, where you want to live, what your hobbies are, etc., so it's odd to suggest how you want to die as a magical exception.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 2:01 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Agnostos said:
Surprised that this is still going on. Easy to tell that people have become too sheltered and taken life for granted when they have to ask why voluntarily ending life is a bad thing.
I'd almost say people have become too sheltered and take life for granted when they don't ask or deliberate why voluntarily ending life is a bad thing. In any period of historical turmoil, people have voluntarily given up life for a myriad of reasons, such as samurais disrespecting their master, a king who has failed his duties, or spiritual ascetics who have attained enlightenment. People who take life for granted assume living must be for the sake of living, that there can't be any other higher subjective purpose.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 2:25 AM

Offline
Mar 2008
1373
katsucats said:
I'd almost say people have become too sheltered and take life for granted when they don't ask or deliberate why voluntarily ending life is a bad thing. In any period of historical turmoil, people have voluntarily given up life for a myriad of reasons, such as samurais disrespecting their master, a king who has failed his duties, or spiritual ascetics who have attained enlightenment. People who take life for granted assume living must be for the sake of living, that there can't be any other higher subjective purpose.


Most cases of suicide in these days are not because they are serving some purpose, but generally suicides happen because they have lost whatever purpose they have to live. I think there's quite a difference in reasoning. Samurai would show that their loyalty to their master was stronger than their will to live; harakiri was their final act of loyalty.

It seems that suicides today show little or no consideration to society; they are only considering themselves and alleviating their own pains, and they are indifferent to the people who have sacrificed to make their life possible in the first place.
Feb 4, 2013 2:27 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Agnostos said:
and they are indifferent to the people who have sacrificed to make their life possible in the first place.
Would you also use this logic when it comes to choosing a career or a wife?
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 2:30 AM

Offline
Mar 2008
1373
katsucats said:
Agnostos said:
and they are indifferent to the people who have sacrificed to make their life possible in the first place.
Would you also use this logic when it comes to choosing a career or a wife?

You're going to have to elaborate, since I don't know what you mean by that.
Feb 4, 2013 2:34 AM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Agnostos said:
katsucats said:
Agnostos said:
and they are indifferent to the people who have sacrificed to make their life possible in the first place.
Would you also use this logic when it comes to choosing a career or a wife?
You're going to have to elaborate, since I don't know what you mean by that.
It's a cultural double standard. Someone who suicides is selfish because he is indifferent to the expectations of the people who have sacrificed to make their life possible in the first place. But the parents are selfish or controlling if they micromanage their child's lives down to determining their careers or dating lives.

If your parents brought you into this world --if repaying society was so important-- you'd listen to them when you're alive, not just when you're contemplating death. If you love a girl, and your parents say no, then you would choose your parents over your girl. If you were consistent, that is...
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 2:40 AM

Offline
Nov 2007
334
A lot of people seem to be viewing this from the impact on others, but a big question to ask is: Why are you committing suicide?

Usually, it's because people are depressed or feeling sorry for themselves. Could also be a desire for attention or curiosity. If someone is doing it because of chronic pain or an illness they will not recover from, that's the grey area where most people think suicide is excusable, because your prospects literally cannot get better. And your needs there outweigh the impact it might have on other people.

However, if the issue is emotional rather than physical, that's usually something that can be worked on and, if not controlled, managed. If someone is really miserable, there's a chance others can help set them in a good direction, though ultimately that person must choose to save themselves, other people can't do it for you. And millions of people choose to save themselves everyday. So it's seen as both a very sad thing, and yes, as a waste if someone does it because A) They were that unhappy and B) 9 times out of 10, they could have done something about it.

I think also it's a big deal because everyone at some time in their life thinks about it. If you say you haven't, you're probably lying. So to see others actually follow-through is sad because it's almost like realizing, "Hey, that could have been me." And most people eventually realize that what they're upset about isn't that big of a deal, or at least that they can overcome it, and that life is worth living. When you're alive, you have the power to change things and think and make decisions and try to impact the world. Nothing happens if you're dead.

But at the core I think it's because we as a species on the whole value life and each other. To see someone end their life challenges our belief in it being precious and triggers our ability to empathize, because again, we've pretty much all felt that way at one time or another. And most people in retrospect think, "I'm glad I didn't do that. Or I'm glad X person was there for me." I think we all also typically believe that people are good and should be cherished, so losing someone is painful, because we cherish the people in our lives and can imagine them being in similar situations. If we honestly thought people were fundamentally evil or that they had no impact on us personally, then by and large, I doubt anyone would care if you commit suicide.

But I guess it's similar to how parents get hypersensitive about seeing little kids unsupervised or hurt or alone. If you've never had kids, you probably by and large either ignore them or dislike them (some people like kids regardless, but I think they're less common), but once you've had kids, you suddenly become more aware of their existence because it's so easy to think, "What if that were my child? Did I do right by my kid?"

Here's an anecdote to highlight the point:

So my sister and I are horror movie fans. We've always thought the horror movie sub-genre of evil kids killing people was ridiculous and lame (an example is Pet Semetary). Because really, it's a child. You could boot them to the head easily. How scary is that? But when she told a co-worker that he said, "Oh, no. I think those are the scariest." She asked him why and he said, "Well, I have kids. And once you have kids you can't help thinking, 'What if my child becomes a serial killer?' It's a parent's worst fear, so it really gets to you."

So as regards suicide, if you've ever had someone you care about and since we all tend to entertain the idea at some point, it's easy to think, "What if my child did that?" Or "What if my friend did that?" And that scares and saddens us.
Feb 4, 2013 2:46 AM

Offline
Mar 2008
1373
katsucats said:
If your parents brought you into this world --if repaying society was so important-- you'd listen to them when you're alive, not just when you're contemplating death. If you love a girl, and your parents say no, then you would choose your parents over your girl. If you were consistent, that is...

You seem to be looking for some absolute standard; there is no such thing. Everything is determined by circumstances.

Living is typically not that difficult. It's quite a different question to ask someone to keep living, (Especially when no one truly wants to die in the first place), than to ask them to do something which will dictate the rest of their lives. The price of one is much lesser than the other. Whenever the price outweighs the indebtedness, then people will refuse...but that all depends on what their values are and how much they feel they are indebted.
Feb 4, 2013 6:22 AM

Offline
Feb 2012
1678
katsucats said:
This is pointless. 3 things you should admit to:
  1. Any attempt to specify the state of mind of a whole group of people is a generalization.
  2. There is no definable ideal state of mind, so all action can be considered "failures of adaptation". Rather, there is no epistemic way of knowing.
  3. Characterizing suicide as "giving up" assumes a prescription that we should aim to live in life. Your "self-preservation mechanism" shows that you are committing the naturalistic fallacy, confusing a natural description for a prescription.


Anytime someone explains to you why your conclusions are wrong you shrug off any piece of information or study that supports it and then resort to reaching logic that is far from correct.

Generalization? How about the only time a person can conclude suicide as a solution is if they're completely indifferent to life and death and genuinely curious as to what death has to offer. Even then the person has to fight their self-preservation instincts. There needs to be something profound, and yes it has to be psychologically negative, in order for one to kill themselves.

Source: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/06/sci-brief.aspx
The two psychological states are perceived burdensomeness and a sense of low belongingness or social alienation. In answer to the second question regarding capability for suicide, self-preservation is a powerful enough instinct that few can overcome it by force of will. The few who can have developed a fearlessness of pain, injury, and death, which, according to the theory, they acquire through a process of repeatedly experiencing painful and otherwise provocative events. These experiences often include previous self-injury, but can also include other experiences, such as repeated accidental injuries; numerous physical fights; and occupations like physician and front-line soldier in which exposure to pain and injury, either directly or vicariously, is common.

Education is great you know Katsucats.

Katsucats said:
If you're arguing for definition #1, then you'd be right. But

I'd be right on definition #2 as well.
When life first spawns on a planet and an entire ecosystem and food chain is developed where every organism serves a purpose within it to make it work without those organisms being perceptually aware of it, that is a possible example of objective purpose. And if you tell me that because every event that happens in the universe is a result of chaos, I will say, how do you know that everything isn't formed through that chaos in order to make the system work? By that premise then everything in the Universe has a purpose, an objective one.
BloodcaliburFeb 4, 2013 6:25 AM
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"



Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly.
Feb 4, 2013 3:01 PM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Bloodcalibur said:
katsucats said:
This is pointless. 3 things you should admit to:
  1. Any attempt to specify the state of mind of a whole group of people is a generalization.
  2. There is no definable ideal state of mind, so all action can be considered "failures of adaptation". Rather, there is no epistemic way of knowing.
  3. Characterizing suicide as "giving up" assumes a prescription that we should aim to live in life. Your "self-preservation mechanism" shows that you are committing the naturalistic fallacy, confusing a natural description for a prescription.


Anytime someone explains to you why your conclusions are wrong you shrug off any piece of information or study that supports it and then resort to reaching logic that is far from correct.

Generalization? How about the only time a person can conclude suicide as a solution is if they're completely indifferent to life and death and genuinely curious as to what death has to offer. Even then the person has to fight their self-preservation instincts. There needs to be something profound, and yes it has to be psychologically negative, in order for one to kill themselves.

Source: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/06/sci-brief.aspx
The two psychological states are perceived burdensomeness and a sense of low belongingness or social alienation. In answer to the second question regarding capability for suicide, self-preservation is a powerful enough instinct that few can overcome it by force of will. The few who can have developed a fearlessness of pain, injury, and death, which, according to the theory, they acquire through a process of repeatedly experiencing painful and otherwise provocative events. These experiences often include previous self-injury, but can also include other experiences, such as repeated accidental injuries; numerous physical fights; and occupations like physician and front-line soldier in which exposure to pain and injury, either directly or vicariously, is common.

Education is great you know Katsucats.

Katsucats said:
If you're arguing for definition #1, then you'd be right. But

I'd be right on definition #2 as well.
When life first spawns on a planet and an entire ecosystem and food chain is developed where every organism serves a purpose within it to make it work without those organisms being perceptually aware of it, that is a possible example of objective purpose. And if you tell me that because every event that happens in the universe is a result of chaos, I will say, how do you know that everything isn't formed through that chaos in order to make the system work? By that premise then everything in the Universe has a purpose, an objective one.
1. I didn't make an assumption that all people think a certain way, I merely brought up the possibility. The burden of proof is on you.
2. You don't understand how Evolution works if you think it has some purpose. The reason we know it doesn't have purposes is because meaning is agent-dependent. So unless you're arguing for a Creator, which would still be subjective-- read Euthyphro dilemma.

Repeating yourself a million times and bolding the word 'wrong' doesn't improve your case. You should know better.

Look up the definition of generalization, you obviously made one and can't admit to it. That's sad.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 3:11 PM

Offline
Oct 2012
16077
Agnostos said:
katsucats said:
If your parents brought you into this world --if repaying society was so important-- you'd listen to them when you're alive, not just when you're contemplating death. If you love a girl, and your parents say no, then you would choose your parents over your girl. If you were consistent, that is...

You seem to be looking for some absolute standard; there is no such thing. Everything is determined by circumstances.

Living is typically not that difficult. It's quite a different question to ask someone to keep living, (Especially when no one truly wants to die in the first place), than to ask them to do something which will dictate the rest of their lives. The price of one is much lesser than the other. Whenever the price outweighs the indebtedness, then people will refuse...but that all depends on what their values are and how much they feel they are indebted.
So dying is less of a price than simply doing something for the rest of your life... Of course I'm looking for some single standard that even all circumstances must be judged by, otherwise it's called a double standard. You think there's some inherent value in future life (but not present life) and that it's morally okay to cause your family anguish by disobeying them, but morally wrong to sever ties. I wonder where that distinction comes from.
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.
Feb 4, 2013 7:11 PM

Offline
Nov 2011
1181
To me, it depends on who and why.

For example, a guy, I don't know, is gonna jump off of the Empire State Building because he lost his home, his family, his job. Unless I was a Priest, I'd be like "Poor Bastard." If I knew him I'd react differently, help him get back on his feet.

Here's a bad example of suicide, a 14-year-old in Russia jump off a building because his Naruto character died. True story.

Of course, death is inevitable but we gotta make our lives worth walking this earth, such as getting a good education, a good career, and a good family until we grow too old to do anything and retire, and wait for death to come.
Feb 4, 2013 8:04 PM

Offline
Jun 2008
25970
I firmly believe that all of us (humans) are the masters of our own bodies.

And as such, we can do whatever we damn well please with it.

If one wishes to no longer live, well....goodbye!
Feb 4, 2013 11:01 PM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
MasterTengkorak said:
Here's a bad example of suicide, a 14-year-old in Russia jump off a building because his Naruto character died. True story.

Do you actually believe in that? I want to point out that it's Russia..

One thing is falling for such crap, but then posting it around as it is true is another.

Of course, death is inevitable but we gotta make our lives worth walking this earth, such as getting a good education, a good career, and a good family until we grow too old to do anything and retire, and wait for death to come.

Who are you to tell that these are things that matter and are worth living for.

sudrian said:
its not cliche

It is.

everyone deserves to be happy and alive and they have to make that happen for themselves

Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to make their happiness, yet that's not the case in the life game.
Deserves being alive.. it's kind of sadistic, you have to have a good reason to say this, "they might find happiness and love!" is too stupid of a reason.

i just dont understand why someone would throw there life away

I'm sure you don't, being 16 and naive is a good reason for that.

think of all the amazing things you would leave behind

And think of the all failures and bad things, why do you leave them out? Stop with wishful thinking.

Suicide is never the answer.Ever.

What is wrong with permanent solution?
LUL
Feb 5, 2013 12:39 AM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
Being positive? More like closing eyes on the reality and pretending it's not there. Try out being more realist, then you might understand one wanting to end their torment with a permanent solution.
It just seems that your only knowledge of suicidal people is just from TV shows, Movies, Books or Anime. You're trivializing this issue by quite a lot.
LUL
Feb 5, 2013 12:41 AM

Offline
Jan 2012
160
"There's no objective in life". Why, yes there is. Our biological purpose, objective, and reason for living is to reproduce and pass down our traits. The reason why people get so depressed is because they overlook this simple objective and go off whining that they don't see a purpose in living, but here's the thing; you can either whine all day or you can give YOURSELF a non-biological purpose, an objevtive, a reason to live. We are humans; we have a complex nervous system that allows rational reasoning, complex understanding, etc something other animals do not possess. So instead of using that brain of ours to think so excessively negatively, we should use our brain to find another purpose in life (even if we are just fooling ourselves or trying to pass time before we ultimately perish and die).

Sure life sucks, but why end it so quickly? If your life sucks that much, do you really want to end your life on a bad note, on a period of your life filled with only torment and suffering? Think about it. Do something you love, give your life a non-biological reason, and die doing it if you have to. It is better to die while loving something than die while hating everything.
Feb 5, 2013 1:14 AM

Offline
Sep 2011
4671
sydrian said:
Suicide is never the answer.Ever.

That depends on what your problem is.
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English

Join my fan club // Improve the transport network
Feb 5, 2013 1:17 AM

Offline
Jan 2012
160
JennyEsquire said:
sydrian said:
Suicide is never the answer.Ever.

That depends what your problem is.

I agree^

There are things called self righteous suicide, suicide so that others may live better, or suicide because your life is literally hell on earth (aka 9/11 jumping off skyscraper instead of choking to death and being burnt alive in front of other people suffering the same fate). I doubt any of us with the ability to post on these forums deserve to commit suicide.
Feb 5, 2013 1:53 AM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
Lt_Spinzaku said:
"There's no objective in life". Why, yes there is. Our biological purpose, objective, and reason for living is to reproduce and pass down our traits.

Me having billions of neurons, while nature has none. Explain to me why I shouldn't be a bit cynical about nature's brilliance?
LUL
Feb 5, 2013 3:27 AM

Offline
Jan 2012
160
one-more-time said:
Lt_Spinzaku said:
"There's no objective in life". Why, yes there is. Our biological purpose, objective, and reason for living is to reproduce and pass down our traits.

Me having billions of neurons, while nature has none. Explain to me why I shouldn't be a bit cynical about nature's brilliance?

I don't understand how this relates to my message. Anyways, I'd like to correct you on your falsification about nature having no neurons: Humans aren't the only ones with neurons, other animals have therm as well. Only difference is that ours are arranged in a complex, and more "Efficient" way, allowing for thought processes which is a good thing and a bad thing.
I didn't say not to be cynical; if anything I'd think of myself of a very cynical human being. I personally think the negatives outweight the positives exponentially and that it would be better if we have never been born. I think all human beings are naturally selfish from the day they are first formed as a fetus and into the outside world (they steal resources from the mother both inside and outside from her and desire more attention even after birth). This world is rotten, despicable, full of pain, disease, and ultimately whatever you do (even if you love your job), you will eventually hate it and see it only as a means of survival because that is what it really is in the end (we do things to survive, yet we suffer as we survive).

We suffer as we live. So what? That's life; Don't like it? Too bad, blame chance and the event of your parents deciding to conceive you. But blaming can only get you so far. Why not live this life in suffering and TRY to give us an illusionary pleasure while we suffer so that we can die with a sense of happiness rather then ending your life in pure misery.
Feb 5, 2013 3:40 AM
Offline
Mar 2012
1
I think the biggest problem with this is morals. People consider this morally wrong and that comes from their core belief, religion. People believe that there IS a purpose to life, to get to paradise. For example in Islam its forbidden to take your own life.
I believe that those who are not obliged to follow such morals should do with their life what they please. It is after all their own choice.
But the problem with suicide is firstly the reason and secondly the effect. People at a young age, specially high school go through the whole drama routine and if society morally accepts suicide, that could increase the death rate. people who are young and who haven't experienced much could kill themselves on petty things. and the effect could cause others to kill themselves. the loss of a person in itself could become a reason for suicide and hence this could turn into a trend.
Feb 5, 2013 3:48 AM

Offline
Jun 2009
1040
one-more-time said:
Trapalicious said:
one-more-time said:
I'm not going to grieve because somebody's in pain and they commit suicide. That is something to celebrate, they're free from a sadistic, idiotic game.


I hope you're aware that makes you sound like a fucking moron.

Please, explain.

I might sound like one to people driven by emotions not their mind.


Well mostly because of the typical "life is just a sad game!" nonsense. Also, you're trivialising the act of suicide, and the more common reasons behind it. Would the suicide of someone who suffered abuse be worthy of celebration, because they no longer have to deal with the abuse? Most people are going to have alternatives, and acting like those do not exist is exactly the type of skewed vision people have whilst going through a shitty period.

In my case, I was close to two people, one of which commit suicide, the second which attempted. I'm unsure why the former done it, and if someone has no personal experience with how this feels, their opinion is worthless and will always be so. Period. The second person is a friend of my mother who went through a very abusive relationship, she got help after attempting it and has now moved far beyond that period. Are you seriously trying to suggest that suicide would have been a logical action in her case?

Supa-Hacka said:
I think the biggest problem with this is morals. People consider this morally wrong and that comes from their core belief, religion.


It has everything to do with what is rational, and our ability to sympathize with others. I don't have statistics, but I think it's fair to say most Atheists are in favour of euthanasia, or even assisted suicide. But are not in favour of people killing themselves over what are (or could) be temporary issues.

This is what infuriates me about the "selfishness" argument people make. If I had a relative who was suffering from a disease, then I could accept that and agree Euthanasia would be an acceptable choice; regardless of the fact I'm going to have less time with them. It's about the well being of those you care for, not disregarding their pain simply to be around them more. This isn't directed towards you, just a rant about this thread in general and the leaps in logic people are making.
TrapaliciousFeb 5, 2013 4:20 AM
Feb 5, 2013 4:00 AM

Offline
Feb 2010
1267
Lt_Spinzaku said:
I don't understand how this relates to my message.

You said that we have biological purpose. Explain to me how the Nature got it right and it's an objective purpose - replication for the sake of replication.

To pass on your genes, because a molecule acquired such capacity 4 billion years ago, without any purpose nor reason is not a very good argument.

Anyways, I'd like to correct you on your falsification about nature having no neurons

Mother Nature, not life-forms.

We suffer as we live. So what? That's life; Don't like it? Too bad, blame chance and the event of your parents deciding to conceive you.

Instead of blaming I'm trying to bring out a conversation about ethics of procreation, what gives you the right to procreate, does parent understands that his wilful choice is selfish and there's no need for that child to exist.

Me sitting on a couch and crying over how stupid life is, doesn't help much, because there will be another me with a realisation: "In what kind of shithole I've ended up, and who the f- thought that it's a good idea to drag me here?".

But blaming can only get you so far.

There is no blaming, but analysis.

Why not live this life in suffering and TRY to give us an illusionary pleasure while we suffer so that we can die with a sense of happiness rather then ending your life in pure misery.

Yes, be a coward and take it up the ass, if you are advocating for delusions and lies, then I have no interest in having a conversation with you.

Rather rhetorical question: If a person kills himself while being happy, does he get an extra ice-cream in non-existence.

Trapalicous said:
Well mostly because of the typical "life is just a sad game!" nonsense.

For you, game without any form of justice, fairness is completely logical and makes sense?

Also, you're trivialising the act of suicide, and the more common reasons behind it.

Don't throw out accusations if you can't prove them.

Most people are going to have alternatives, and acting like those do not exist is exactly the type of skewed vision people have whilst going through a shitty period.

Where did I say that there are no alternatives? I don't mind if somebody has a rational discussion with suicidal person, if this person doesn't have a consistent and rational reason for why they would take their life then it's just sensible to somehow calm this person down and have a conversation again.

But to make them into something they are not, to impose your perspective of what life should be/is is just wrong.

If someone has no personal experience with how this feels, their opinion is worthless and will always be so. Period.

I have experienced personally one lethal suicide with cutting veins and one attempt of jumping off of a building.

You can't turn the clock back, I can only respect that person's choice and remember as a decent human being.

What is wrong with respecting one's choice to leave gracefully with sympathy, especially if you see that their mind is sane and they're consistent with what they are, and they have reasons to take such action.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that suicide would have been a logical action in her case?

I see nothing wrong if it was the choice.

Please, don't interpret my thought as if we shouldn't care about such people, I do understand that many choices are emotion-base. But I don't see any point in keeping a person to life, when he has a rational reason for why to leave this place, there is nothing to grieve about in such case.
one-more-timeFeb 5, 2013 5:48 AM
LUL
Feb 5, 2013 7:22 AM

Offline
Jan 2012
160
Ok buddy, think of it this way. Humans are biological creatures correct? We originate from the earliest eukaryotic cells. ALL LIFE, i repeat, ALL LIFE seek food, nourishment, and the ability to reproduce. Everything animals do: war, aggression, dominance, is all for the sake of reproduction. Males flaunt their likeable genes to the females and the females choose which one to mate with so that future generations are strong and healthy. It's been that way ever since (unless you believe in religious creation which I think is just pure ignorance and stupidty).

If you still don't believe that human's purpose in life (rather the biological purpose or objective of all life forms) is to reproduce and pass down our genes, then you need to go and discuss this with scientific professionals or something, because this is basic knowledge.

I never said you were blaming things, I'm talking in a general sense to people who commit suicide or have feelings of excessive depression or cynicism.

Another thing that is factual rather than opinion based: I said to deal with life and try to give yourself a different purpose than your biological purpose (which is essentially the only reason why we come with a several systems (muscle, respiratory, immune, etc) to basically help preserve our genetics and reproductive system. You said, "yes be a coward and take it up the ass". Do you know what a coward is? Taking your own life because you can't deal with reality and the fact that you ended up in a misforunate accident known as contingency IS being a coward. Really, I'd like to see someone who agrees with your logic of who is a coward. In the end, all form of purposes that you give yourself other than your biological purpose are illusionary and just ways to pass the time and to die in ignorance that a non-reproductive organism failed as a living, biological organism. You might say, we can help other people live and help benefit them (red cross, etc). But for what? It's so that they can live, start a family, and pass down history, genes, legacy, and continue the human dominace.

This happens with all organisms and if you can't agree with these facts, then you are just choosing to be arrogant and ignorant. Maybe my ideas of how life sucks and is worthless are opinions but the fact is, our TRUE purpose in life is to reproduce. If YOU can't fathom that basic 101 biology known fact that has been known for centuries now, then I don't wish to continue in a conversation with you since you post nothing but baseless opinions backed up by nothing but facts, excessive cynicism (also backed up by no facts).

There's a reason why humans are the only species that commit known suicides; it's because of people who decide to find other "GRAND" purpose in life and fail at it simply because the human body and cells didn't create mechanisms to achieve what humans want, rather to reproduce.

If all humans didn't reproduce and had your way of thinking, the human race would die within a century. I don't plan on reproducing simply because overpopulation is getting to the best of everyone and my morals, but I seriously hope you don't plan on reproducing, adopting, OR taking care of anyone but yourself. Suicide isn't only a vice morally, but a feature of failure human beings somehow still clings on to this day. Don't try to justify suicide and everything in this life. To be honest, life is simple... your brain and complex nervous system just makes us overthinks things and try to avoid the true purpose of "Life". You commit suicide, you failed in life. Simple. Pretty sure failure is a bad thing unless you can capitalize and learn from your failures.... oh wait, suicide means you are dead. Good riddance, suicidal people are cancerous to the human race.
Feb 5, 2013 8:10 AM

Offline
Sep 2011
4671
Lt_Spinzaku said:
Suicide isn't only a vice morally, but a feature of failure human beings somehow still clings on to this day. Don't try to justify suicide and everything in this life. To be honest, life is simple... your brain and complex nervous system just makes us overthinks things and try to avoid the true purpose of "Life". You commit suicide, you failed in life. Simple. Pretty sure failure is a bad thing unless you can capitalize and learn from your failures.... oh wait, suicide means you are dead. Good riddance, suicidal people are cancerous to the human race.

It all depends on what your idea of a successful human is. Nature doesn't imbue us with any greater purpose, and our will towards self-preservation is just a series of instincts and biological imperatives. We can (obviously) find our own purpose in life, so what is it exactly that one has failed with by killing themselves? If you could elaborate on that.
BryanBosslingFeb 5, 2013 3:09 PM
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English

Join my fan club // Improve the transport network
Feb 5, 2013 9:14 AM

Offline
Mar 2011
40
Historically, because:

1) You don't pay any more taxes
2) You don't work, producing profits for others
3) Can't procreate anymore to increase the population
(4 optionally) Not pay up your debts, leave progeny that someone else has to pay for, etc.

But most people avoid it because some deranged geezers during the dark ages said so ;)
Feb 5, 2013 11:11 AM

Offline
Jan 2013
288
Well, religions told our ancestors it's a bad thing to kill yourself, so I guess we kept saying that to one another as if it is just the way it is, but being more open-minded now, we do reconsider that, which is good ;)
Pages (12) « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 7 » ... Last »

More topics from this board

» Is there any country you like more than the one you live in right now? And if so, why haven't you taken the leap?

fleurbleue - 5 hours ago

17 by Nette »»
5 minutes ago

» Where do you guys meet people irl?

Cneq - Oct 25

16 by Zayvex »»
10 minutes ago

» What kind of familiar would you like to have irl?

Cute_Marseille - Yesterday

15 by Zarutaku »»
10 minutes ago

» would you be able to forgive your bullies if they apologized?

Ymir_The_Viking - Oct 25

23 by Zayvex »»
27 minutes ago

» How much time do you think it would take before no one misses you anymore if you stopped logging in on MAL? ( 1 2 )

fleurbleue - Oct 24

92 by Zayvex »»
32 minutes ago
It’s time to ditch the text file.
Keep track of your anime easily by creating your own list.
Sign Up Login