Topic: Do individuals have the right to commit suicide?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #3,254
I think individuals should be able to decide when they would like to end their life. Professional help should be encouraged before making the decision though.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. They have the right to end their life just as they have the right to live. | 20 | 69% | |
| No. Suicide violates the value society has on life. | 2 | 7% | |
| It depends on their reason to wanting to commit suicide. | 4 | 14% | |
| Other (specify) | 3 | 10% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #58,838
As long as they provide for cleaning up any mess they make with their carcass, I don't care.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #58,855
I'd be terrified if people could force me to live against my will. It's comforting to have a recourse that's appropriate for any predicament and always within reach.
Ph !5pM9NZR/l6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #58,862
It depends on the age and the situation. I don't think a 14 year old with substance abusing parents should be allowed to kill themselves because life is hard and their parents aren't supportive.
Homestar !RUNNERV7vk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #58,865
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,216
suicide should be a lawTheSheep !kJ.A4PF7.k joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,230
Only if they pay back to society what they got from it... ;)
Suicide means loss to the country you live in, specially if you're young. They pay for everything for you (health, education to a degree etc.) ... killing yourself kills their investment... and since this will be my world one day, I forbid you to commit suicide.
Suicide means loss to the country you live in, specially if you're young. They pay for everything for you (health, education to a degree etc.) ... killing yourself kills their investment... and since this will be my world one day, I forbid you to commit suicide.
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,231
@58,865 (Homestar !RUNNERV7vk)
> (we so need to be able to 'thumbs up' posts here)
Keep it to one thread, please. Thanks.
> (we so need to be able to 'thumbs up' posts here)
Keep it to one thread, please. Thanks.
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,266
Why do humans have rights? Other than mob rule and mass delusion, what authority grants rights to humanity? What authority other than mob rule will punish violation of these rights?
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
protip !tyLmN8C16E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,267
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,390
@previous (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
Aren't rights interpreted as some kind of metaphysical law to follow? If claims of the existence of a deity are answered with claims of a burden of proof, then why shouldn't claims of the existence of rights be met with similar demands for proof? If rights exist, why can't a god?
Aren't rights interpreted as some kind of metaphysical law to follow? If claims of the existence of a deity are answered with claims of a burden of proof, then why shouldn't claims of the existence of rights be met with similar demands for proof? If rights exist, why can't a god?
psychopath !PAHVpsycho replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,397
@previous (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)Libtards can't into logic. They support feminism and Islam at the same time.
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,401
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,405
@59,390 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
You are one stupid motherfucker.
Rights are various things to various worldviews. Some consider them natural, but with programmatic means to explain them. Other people consider rights to be the applications of ethical frameworks.
All rights, beliefs relating to them, and subleties of the applications of rights are influenced by culture.
You are one stupid motherfucker.
Rights are various things to various worldviews. Some consider them natural, but with programmatic means to explain them. Other people consider rights to be the applications of ethical frameworks.
All rights, beliefs relating to them, and subleties of the applications of rights are influenced by culture.
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,406
@59,401 (dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA)
Exactly. So it's mass delusion, not something we observe in nature as empirical fact.
Exactly. So it's mass delusion, not something we observe in nature as empirical fact.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,409
@59,397 (psychopath !PAHVpsycho)
> claim superiority of your views
> use image macros, stereotypes and bullshit as proof
> claim superiority of your views
> use image macros, stereotypes and bullshit as proof
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,412
@59,405 (K)
I understand that just fine. Yet, I don't believe in them any more than others believe in religion. This irritates moralfags for the same reason christfags get mad at atheists - because they can't prove the other party wrong, no matter how hard they try.
Rights are an idea, and ideas are flawed human bullshit. If you think about it, living your life for the good of "rights" is exactly the same as living your life for the ideas of others, because rights really are just the ideas of others.
I understand that just fine. Yet, I don't believe in them any more than others believe in religion. This irritates moralfags for the same reason christfags get mad at atheists - because they can't prove the other party wrong, no matter how hard they try.
Rights are an idea, and ideas are flawed human bullshit. If you think about it, living your life for the good of "rights" is exactly the same as living your life for the ideas of others, because rights really are just the ideas of others.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,413
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,416
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,419
@59,413 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But you spelled it out - rights are either an objective construct wired into the universe as believed by some or they are part of an applied ethical system.
In the case of the former, you can shoot that down all day - so long as you still believe in evolution like the rest of us, humans are clearly not the center of the universe and are clearly not special, especially the retards and degenerates that are starting to grow common with overpopulation. It simply doesn't make sense to assume that the world was made for humans based on how much goes wrong for humans. Thus, it's unlikely that standards concerning the treatment of humans would be in any way written into the fabric of existence so as to be called "objective."
This brings us to the second case, in which rights are admittedly just a human construct a bunch of people agree on as they go applying their moral senses. The former case is pretty much the same as the latter, just with delusions of grandeur. But in admitting that rights are a human construct, doesn't that mean they are entirely relative and that their existence is debatable?
Are not rights exactly the same to the morons of the modern day as supernatural moral watchdog figures were to the morons of yesteryear?
But you spelled it out - rights are either an objective construct wired into the universe as believed by some or they are part of an applied ethical system.
In the case of the former, you can shoot that down all day - so long as you still believe in evolution like the rest of us, humans are clearly not the center of the universe and are clearly not special, especially the retards and degenerates that are starting to grow common with overpopulation. It simply doesn't make sense to assume that the world was made for humans based on how much goes wrong for humans. Thus, it's unlikely that standards concerning the treatment of humans would be in any way written into the fabric of existence so as to be called "objective."
This brings us to the second case, in which rights are admittedly just a human construct a bunch of people agree on as they go applying their moral senses. The former case is pretty much the same as the latter, just with delusions of grandeur. But in admitting that rights are a human construct, doesn't that mean they are entirely relative and that their existence is debatable?
Are not rights exactly the same to the morons of the modern day as supernatural moral watchdog figures were to the morons of yesteryear?
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,421
@59,412 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
Well, I guess your utter inability to express capacity for empathy and to apply abstract codes of conduct to your life really do belie your developmental disorders, plus anger and distrust toward everybody.
You claim superiority of your views, as if something more basal and animalistic is better, but your inability to grasp simple cultural advancements is sad.
Well, I guess your utter inability to express capacity for empathy and to apply abstract codes of conduct to your life really do belie your developmental disorders, plus anger and distrust toward everybody.
You claim superiority of your views, as if something more basal and animalistic is better, but your inability to grasp simple cultural advancements is sad.
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,423
@59,419 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
Ethics and morals are related, but entirely different, child.
Ethics and morals are related, but entirely different, child.
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,424
@59,421 (K)
I grasp it, I just do not raise it above what it is. Funny how pointing out an objective, rational truth is construed as hating the useful delusion. I know the role of the useful delusion, I don't want to see it go anywhere.
I just don't want to be forced to acknowledge it as more than delusion.
I grasp it, I just do not raise it above what it is. Funny how pointing out an objective, rational truth is construed as hating the useful delusion. I know the role of the useful delusion, I don't want to see it go anywhere.
I just don't want to be forced to acknowledge it as more than delusion.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,425
@59,419 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
> But in admitting that rights are a human construct, doesn't that mean they are entirely relative
Relative in what sense? Chess, for example, is an entirely human construct. Nevertheless, there are objectively bad moves you can make in the game of chess.
> and that their existence is debatable?
Education is a human construct, but no one doubts the existence of education.
> Are not rights exactly the same to the morons of the modern day as supernatural moral watchdog figures were to the morons of yesteryear?
No.
> But in admitting that rights are a human construct, doesn't that mean they are entirely relative
Relative in what sense? Chess, for example, is an entirely human construct. Nevertheless, there are objectively bad moves you can make in the game of chess.
> and that their existence is debatable?
Education is a human construct, but no one doubts the existence of education.
> Are not rights exactly the same to the morons of the modern day as supernatural moral watchdog figures were to the morons of yesteryear?
No.
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,426
@59,419 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
They agreed on rights because they felt live would be much easier if those rights where applied
They agreed on rights because they felt live would be much easier if those rights where applied
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,427
@59,423 (K)
How, moralnigger, are they different? How do they relate to the concept of rights?
If you are a high level moralnigger, you could be of use. Clarify how this all works for us so maybe we can get somewhere.
How, moralnigger, are they different? How do they relate to the concept of rights?
If you are a high level moralnigger, you could be of use. Clarify how this all works for us so maybe we can get somewhere.
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,430
@59,425 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well yeah, but when a guy like me goes to say that there are "objectively bad" moves for society, such as allowing retards and defectives to reproduce, I get told that I'm bad for wanting to violate peoples' "rights," and that people have an "inherent right to life" that we must respect Or Else.
See, that's the problem with this whole concept of rights - nobody agrees on them, so I have a hard time believing in them in the same way as I can believe that education exists.
Well yeah, but when a guy like me goes to say that there are "objectively bad" moves for society, such as allowing retards and defectives to reproduce, I get told that I'm bad for wanting to violate peoples' "rights," and that people have an "inherent right to life" that we must respect Or Else.
See, that's the problem with this whole concept of rights - nobody agrees on them, so I have a hard time believing in them in the same way as I can believe that education exists.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,433
@59,427 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
Nah, there's little use in trying to teach somebody who lacks emotional intelligence. Just stick to your hard, objective sciences, sit in your lab, hating the world, and commit suicide at 42, after killing some random people.
Nah, there's little use in trying to teach somebody who lacks emotional intelligence. Just stick to your hard, objective sciences, sit in your lab, hating the world, and commit suicide at 42, after killing some random people.
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,439
@59,430 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
Did you ever give your opinion about suicide? I might have missed it.
Did you ever give your opinion about suicide? I might have missed it.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,455
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,468
@59,433 (K)
Assumptions much? You don't know that's what I'm like. Other than math I'm actually not a huge fan of science. I like transcendental logic and thought. I'm not a Spock-like lab asspie. Fuck growing up to be a Dilbert lab drone. I have plenty of emotional intelligence, nigger. My ideal human is Conan, not some soul-dead fuck socket from the movie Equilibrium.
@59,439 (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
Suicide... to me, it depends who's doing it. I find that the suicidal types I meet are disappointingly intelligence, attractive and physically robust. The exact people who want to commit suicide are usually the people whose presence I would miss most. Not all of them, but that's true of many of them.
It's the sick bastards who are contented with their store food and menial jobs and dying natural world who I want to see off themselves.
It's not a simple yes or no.
Assumptions much? You don't know that's what I'm like. Other than math I'm actually not a huge fan of science. I like transcendental logic and thought. I'm not a Spock-like lab asspie. Fuck growing up to be a Dilbert lab drone. I have plenty of emotional intelligence, nigger. My ideal human is Conan, not some soul-dead fuck socket from the movie Equilibrium.
@59,439 (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
Suicide... to me, it depends who's doing it. I find that the suicidal types I meet are disappointingly intelligence, attractive and physically robust. The exact people who want to commit suicide are usually the people whose presence I would miss most. Not all of them, but that's true of many of them.
It's the sick bastards who are contented with their store food and menial jobs and dying natural world who I want to see off themselves.
It's not a simple yes or no.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,486
@59,430 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
> that's the problem with this whole concept of rights - nobody agrees on them
That's only a semantic problem. "Rights" and "morality" are floating signifiers, but that doesn't mean they can't occasionally point to concepts with objective grounding (another such signifier is "race", which I'm sure you wouldn't deny). The mess of meanings has gotten to the point where any conversation involving a word like "rights" no longer makes sense, and so many people have just agreed to stop talking about it (or as they call it, relativism). At this point, I wish we could just invent a new set of words, engrave the definitions into the moon, and hang any postmodernist or sky worshipper who tries to corrupt them.
It'd take a little more than two paragraphs to clear up the centuries of confusion over these issues, and I'm getting bored already, so I'll just say this: "rights" and "morality" have been universally agreed upon by all people for all of history — at least as much as any other aspect of reality is agreed upon. Work out the rest for yourself.
> that's the problem with this whole concept of rights - nobody agrees on them
That's only a semantic problem. "Rights" and "morality" are floating signifiers, but that doesn't mean they can't occasionally point to concepts with objective grounding (another such signifier is "race", which I'm sure you wouldn't deny). The mess of meanings has gotten to the point where any conversation involving a word like "rights" no longer makes sense, and so many people have just agreed to stop talking about it (or as they call it, relativism). At this point, I wish we could just invent a new set of words, engrave the definitions into the moon, and hang any postmodernist or sky worshipper who tries to corrupt them.
It'd take a little more than two paragraphs to clear up the centuries of confusion over these issues, and I'm getting bored already, so I'll just say this: "rights" and "morality" have been universally agreed upon by all people for all of history — at least as much as any other aspect of reality is agreed upon. Work out the rest for yourself.
protip !tyLmN8C16E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,490
@59,468 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
You have previously said that everybody who isn’t a left-brained science type should be killed, no?
You have previously said that everybody who isn’t a left-brained science type should be killed, no?
totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,491
@59,468 (Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE)
What if the attractive, healthy and robust people are also content with everything?
What if the attractive, healthy and robust people are also content with everything?
Mister Misanthrope !NPN/W33CeE replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,566
@59,486 (C)
See, that's the thing - we take our perception-based concepts of what behaviors cause good outcomes for society and moralize them, with "rights" being part of this moral framework. We know from past experiences with corrupt aristocracies that oppressing the individual or mistreating low rungs of society causes unfavorable results, so we find ways to avoid this result and say people have "rights" to make it immoral to mistreat filthy, replaceable commoners. The problem is that now that we have no aristocracies, i.e. a hereditary elite who can see the world more clearly than the masses of idiots, our ability to perceive the world and judge the long term outcomes of actions is limited to a lowest common denominator level of judgment. What if I see that it I would make a lot of money by building a factory here and dumping my industrial wastes into the river? I of course now think I have a "right" to do this, but what happens when someone else more intelligent than me realizes that if I do that, everyone must now get the same right or else someone will cry inequality, and that the end result will be AIDSwater that glows in the dark and makes Geiger counters dance a jig from a quarter mile away? What if this more intelligent person says "No, Bobby, you do not have the right to build your factory?" Who is really right? Even moreso, let's make a "tree falls in the forest" scenario where lots of people want to build factories by rivers but NOBODY around is intelligent enough to foresee Chernobyl water as a long term result - do these people have a right to fire up the factories, or do they not?
My biggest problem with this whole concept of "rights" is that no matter how you slice it, at some point they seem to rely on human judgment and I just don't have a lot of faith in human judgment. The list of human follies, including the "shit happens" mistakes that nobody could have prevented, is so great and bountiful that I don't want my ethical system based on it in any way - and that includes giving human mental constructs like "rights" a place in that ethical system.
@59,490 (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
Find the post and we'll talk.
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
If they're attractive, healthy, robust and dumb, as they'd have to be to feel content in an idiocracy, then I wouldn't mind seeing them go.
See, that's the thing - we take our perception-based concepts of what behaviors cause good outcomes for society and moralize them, with "rights" being part of this moral framework. We know from past experiences with corrupt aristocracies that oppressing the individual or mistreating low rungs of society causes unfavorable results, so we find ways to avoid this result and say people have "rights" to make it immoral to mistreat filthy, replaceable commoners. The problem is that now that we have no aristocracies, i.e. a hereditary elite who can see the world more clearly than the masses of idiots, our ability to perceive the world and judge the long term outcomes of actions is limited to a lowest common denominator level of judgment. What if I see that it I would make a lot of money by building a factory here and dumping my industrial wastes into the river? I of course now think I have a "right" to do this, but what happens when someone else more intelligent than me realizes that if I do that, everyone must now get the same right or else someone will cry inequality, and that the end result will be AIDSwater that glows in the dark and makes Geiger counters dance a jig from a quarter mile away? What if this more intelligent person says "No, Bobby, you do not have the right to build your factory?" Who is really right? Even moreso, let's make a "tree falls in the forest" scenario where lots of people want to build factories by rivers but NOBODY around is intelligent enough to foresee Chernobyl water as a long term result - do these people have a right to fire up the factories, or do they not?
My biggest problem with this whole concept of "rights" is that no matter how you slice it, at some point they seem to rely on human judgment and I just don't have a lot of faith in human judgment. The list of human follies, including the "shit happens" mistakes that nobody could have prevented, is so great and bountiful that I don't want my ethical system based on it in any way - and that includes giving human mental constructs like "rights" a place in that ethical system.
@59,490 (protip !tyLmN8C16E)
Find the post and we'll talk.
@previous (totoforhire !!pNz4kjfeW)
If they're attractive, healthy, robust and dumb, as they'd have to be to feel content in an idiocracy, then I wouldn't mind seeing them go.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 42 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,591
Who's stopping you (or anyone)?
jump !VIfloDyEYo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #59,599
@OP
No one should have to suffer every fucking day so that other people can know they are alive.
Imagine how shitty life can be sometimes. Imagine every day is like that then you still have those shitty things happen too. It sucks sucks sucks and then your one hope of release is all fucked because of massive guilt laid on you.
Its everyone else who are being selfish. They have absolutely no idea how terrible you feel all time. They have no concept whatsoever of how awful it is to be awake. Humans are incapable of real empathy.
If you want to do it, and you can, don't feel guilty. It's time you thought about yourself for once.
No one should have to suffer every fucking day so that other people can know they are alive.
Imagine how shitty life can be sometimes. Imagine every day is like that then you still have those shitty things happen too. It sucks sucks sucks and then your one hope of release is all fucked because of massive guilt laid on you.
Its everyone else who are being selfish. They have absolutely no idea how terrible you feel all time. They have no concept whatsoever of how awful it is to be awake. Humans are incapable of real empathy.
If you want to do it, and you can, don't feel guilty. It's time you thought about yourself for once.