Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Is this a non-ironic version of that "You are just mad because you are angry" meme?

If by angry you meant neurochemically brainfucked into bouts of being pissed off, maybe? Sometimes the cause of depression is pretty literally just 'cause you're wired that way and there's not really a damn thing you can do about it environment or behavior wise, for all that they can help mitigate potential consequences*. Medication can help, but I'm pretty sure you've been around for discussions on how much of a crap shoot that can be. Vital and helpful for many, but often enough inconsistent enough you maybe don't want things around that's going to make it easier for someone dealing with shit to kill someone, particularly themselves.

* Incidentally, I'm fairly sure roughly 100% of recommendations on that front (from anyone not sodding bugnuts or bankrolled by gun lobbyists or their ilk, anyway) include keeping guns well the hell away from anyone involved, at the absolute least if there's not immediate supervision.

Guess what happened? Suicide rates dropped. I'm not sure if that was the rate of attempted suicides or suicides that resulted in death, but the point is that reducing access to guns does reduce suicides.

Pretty sure it was both. Far as I can recall you pretty consistently see both a reduction in attempts and success rates vis a vis suicide when gun proliferation drops. Homicide, too.

Turns out there's currently not really a substitute good on the lethality or encouraging lethality front for firearms. For reasons somehow a mystery to many, the device we've spent centuries improving in regards to killing people makes it easier than just about anything else we got for people to die when it's around.

[wierd]

Before guns, it was poison though.

It is just much harder to get your hands on concentrated cyanide these days. The really strong stuff causes unconsciousness in seconds, and death in minutes.

[Gentlefish]

I'm referring specifically to all the people "saved" by the fear of hurting their families. My point is that the argument is stupid, since if you can't convince them to live for themselves, convincing them to live out of guilt is probably the worst possible option. The social contract already breaks down when someone no longer values their life; you can guilt them into continuing to follow the Social Contract, but it's entirely to their loss.

And is it wrong to live for something other than yourself if it's what you need to get through your days? I can guarantee you I'm not living for myself right now, and I haven't been for a few years. I live for my friends and for my pets since without them my life would be non-existent.

So because I'm not living for myself nor inherently value my life I should opt into suicide is what you're saying here, am I correct?

[wierd]

You can, but that is the very definition of co-dependency.  What happens when the kids leave home? Would such a home life really be healthy for the children? Etc.

[Trekkin]

You can, but that is the very definition of co-dependency.  What happens when the kids leave home? Would such a home life really be healthy for the children? Etc.

Co-dependency is preferable to suicide, though, particularly if it results in people seeking therapy for others' sake -- which does happen and does get people help they wouldn't otherwise get.

[bloop_bleep]

smjjames: We are not saying that the children cause the depression, we are considering the effects that a parent's suicides has on the children.

So does being ripped away from your parents, and placed with strangers.

Yet we routinely do that.

Problem is, often in that case the original parent(s) are abusive, and there is no way to stop them from being so. In the case of suicide, therapy, medication, and other such measures can go a long way to prevent it. Which is why we should get a better mental health system and restrict access to guns instead of throwing our hands up and deciding there's no way to stop it.

If you note, you would have seen that I advocate for exactly that-- but am understanding enough that those are not magic bullets, and dont wave magic wands over people.  For those people where medication, counselling, and other therapy fail, euthanasia is much better than do-it-yourself with the shotgun.

...I don't think we disagree on anything, actually. My first post was mostly in response to misko27 saying that people shouldn't consider their family's feelings when deciding to commit suicide.

[Magistrum]

[Failed suicide stops further suicidal thoughts]
No, that can make it much much worse.
I am in a position to know. I work with some people where that has happened.

I have no professional backing.

Of course it makes things worse, full agreement. Even if your attempt didn't leave any marks it still has horrible social implications.

Of course, statistics show that in the long run people who attempt suicide are sightly more likely to suicide successfully later than the general population. (or less if it is as underreported as suspected, but I think we have good enough numbers)

However, failed suicidees(?) are usually the most certain demographics for psychological support, and increasing the proportion of failed suicide attempts is likely to decrease the general amount of suicides in general.

Of course, what "increasing the proportion of failed suicide attempts" mean is up to your legislators, who may have more to take in account.

[Dunamisdeos]

Does no-one else find the concept of "parents are wrong for bringing a child into the world against their will" and "child is responsible for their parents feeling of suicide" to be blatantly opposite concepts?
 
That argument serves solely to force a person to the center of importance regardless of the situation or their personal responsibility. We have a responsibility in regards to our own choices whether we like it or not. We aren't the most important thing in our lives, whether we like it or not. It's morally reprehensible to place our responsibilities (especially one as massive as rearing our own children) onto others just because we don't want them anymore. We are not absolved from life just because we do not care for it.

Refusing to accept a place in the world that isn't at the absolute center coupled with an inability to take joy in living a life for something other than oneself are traits of another legit illness we ignore: Donaldus Trumpfluenza Clinical Narcissism. I'd be 100% unsurprised to find that a person suffering from this condition could become severely depressed. The whole world serves to remind them that they are wrong every day, and there's not really any hope between getting help (hard to impossible) or just mentally shattering.

[misko27]

Well I guess I have seen what the logical extreme of libertarainism is. The only reason someone should be allowed to end their life is in the case of extreme health issues.

I'm literally working off of everyone's favorite authoritarian philosopher: Rousseau Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes wanted you to obey the government in all circumstances, and that the very definition of moral was what the Sovereign wanted. But even Hobbes had a catch: if your life is under threat, then you are released from your obligations because all of your obligations ultimately flow from the state protecting your life in exchange for all the crap we let it do. When it fails that in a real and immediate way, the law is gone. But when you don't value your life? Then the social contract ceases to matter. Poof. Hobbes laughs and leaves with a twirl of his hat. Heand his twin Pain leave the premises.

I bring up the example of the five year old child because you were saying that your relatives *deserve* immense pain and trauma if you're suicidal because they didn't help enough. Because a tiny kid who just barely understands what death even is would *totally* know how to help you.

My point is that your relatives don't deserve shit. Your kid deserves a minimum level of respect, but given that adoption exists there are ways around that; after all, not everyone does agree to have children, but it still happens. Unplanned pregnancies, people who refuse to get abortions but don't want to raise a child, etc.

I disagree that giving your child to foster care or an orphanage is always okay. Once you have a child, it is your responsibility, that you cannot back out of. It is incredibly selfish to give your child trauma because you don't feel quite ready yet to accept the consequences of the thing that *you* created. If you physically cannot care for the child, in that if they continued to live with you they would have an even worse life than if they were in an orphanage, then giving them away is somewhat justified. But when you are doing it just to restore your own personal freedom it is not okay, when you consider the effect it would have on the child.

Talking about what your responsibilities "should" be is silly. Yes, in ideal circumstances one should take responsibility for their child, but if you can't, that's not the end of the world. Again: Anyone willing to trade out their child just to get their personal freedom back is probably not someone you want raising a child anyway! No, I don't think letting a child being raised by a parent who resents their existance is a good model.

My point is that suicide can indeed be selfish in some cases, and overall it would be better to try to prevent it instead of going "eh, it happens." There are some cases where it's preferable, but those are extremely rare. A very big fraction of the suicides in this country can be easily prevented with therapy and other measures.

And I'm trying to rehabilitate it. Yes, therapy, etc. Therapy is great, etc. But people have this stupid knee-jerk "Oh but your family/friends/kids/dog/acquaintances/some-hobo-you-gave-a-sandwich-too-once will never move on, they will always have a hole in their heart!" It's a thoroughly stupid response for three reasons:

1. You may just not have people who care. What happens if your parents are dead and you have no kids? Would you then say "Ah well, suicide is alright then?" Probably not, and I suspect that a lot of people just have this ridiculous notion that someone must care about you even though that is objectively false. What if no one cares? No one anywhere in the damn world?
2. What if no one actually cares? Again, just because you have a family, you're assuming that they'd automatically be devestated by this, which is quite possibly the thing which most directly goes against my experience of anything anyone has ever said to me. Believe me, not everyone cares.
3. Finally, even if there are people who exist and do care: why must you? Why is it absolutely necessary that because it does bother them that you must take it into an account? I'm sure that neither of you really believe you must give your "loved ones" an absolute veto on the rest of your life; and if you do, that's stupid.

Leading to the real point: my theory is people just don't like suicide. They don't like the idea of it, they don't like the sound of it; they've got the same prejudice against it that pro-lifers have against abortion, in that it's an instinctual reaction which uses all these justifications which they don't use in other situations because it's only suicide that they really find that uncomfortable. weird has been bringing up the uncomfortable point that is the center of my argument: sometimes there's nowhere to go but down, people know it, and forcing them to prolong the inevitable because you find it uncomfortable to let them make their own decisions is really the crueler thing to do. No, it's not because they're going to die (although, hey, everyone is going to die, why can't we choose a time and place?). It's just that things are bad and they're going to be worse and only worse and then they'll die. And sometimes that is just the Objective Point of View, not the depressed Point of View, which the optimists find themselves unwilling to accept for some reason.

Refusing to accept a place in the world that isn't at the absolute center coupled with an inability to take joy in living a life for something other than oneself are traits of another legit illness we ignore: Donaldus Trumpfluenza Clinical Narcissism. I'd be 100% unsurprised to find that a person suffering from this condition could become severely depressed. The whole world serves to remind them that they are wrong every day, and there's not really any hope between getting help (hard to impossible) or just mentally shattering.

This is cart before horse though. From my experience, people like that aren't usually just born like that. They're made into it. Clinical narcissism is a reaction to being broken in some way. And since it's based on a fundamentally warped view of reality, the fact that reality is proving them wrong is already not a problem. In fact, malignant narcissism, the worst kind, is probably treatment-proof, since they'd never accept help from a therapist since they'd never allow anyone to cure them but themselves.

[Trekkin]

Of course, what "increasing the proportion of failed suicide attempts" mean is up to your legislators, who may have more to take in account.

It's not fun to think about, but a suicide attempt is one of the clearest and most reliable signals that someone needs help, particularly for things like depression that often make people less likely to seek help; that's part of why survivors of suicide attempts get help more reliably than the general population. I'm not advocating for just waiting around for people to try by any means, but short of putting the entire population through regular evaluation (which is a massive burden on the mental healthcare system and may actually give people more to worry about) some people are going to slip through whatever prophylactic measures are in place, however worthy they may be, at which point the world of relevant things gets a lot smaller and more urgent -- and that's where we have to consider guns, because the barrier to their use is extremely low. There's no walk to/up a bridge on which someone might reconsider or be spotted, no fiddly details about the acquisition and dosage of poison to get cold feet fretting over and a general lack of time: guns are perceived as a quick, simple, and certain method of killing people, and they are certainly quick to try.

That's really one of the keys, I think, to separating generally desirable gun use (hunting, target shooting, law enforcement, defense, etc) from undesirable gun use (suicide and homicide): desirable gun use is more often premeditated, or at least more generally amenable to premeditation. Much as we focus on mass shootings, and as much as is made of the planning that went into the Vegas shooting, it is worth considering how many people die at the hands of someone who wouldn't kill them days or even hours later, and to perhaps work out a way of making guns inconvenient enough that more people ride out that critical time and end up not wanting to kill anybody by the time they have the means. Of the remainder, the suicidal ones have more of a chance to think things through (not to say they won't still choose to die, or that that choice is somehow always wrong) and the homicidal ones have more of a chance to get caught.

[Maximum Spin]

In this way we see why wierd was wrong and calm discussion can't solve the gun debate: the problem ultimately stems from fundamental disagreements on whether or to what extent it is acceptable for a person to enforce his moral judgements on another.

Puritanism is never truly dead.

[Magistrum]

Thats a very good description.

In my view, no one has the right to take any human life, even his own, and I believe it is moral to enforce this.

[Maximum Spin]

Exactly.

In contrast, in my view, people very often have the right to take human lives, always including their own, and quite possibly including others such as in cases of defending one's person or property (not just in cases where your own life is at stake but even from simple battery or trespass), and it's almost unthinkably immoral to presume to interfere.

[Magistrum]

Even the smaller details of our believes can generate huge discussions.

I recognize that it is possible to kill someone accidentally in self defense, and find that barely acceptable. Yet it doesn't cross me as completely unreasonable that one may take the life of another purposefully after engaging in combat, out of fear of revenge or repercussions.

[Dunamisdeos]

Refusing to accept a place in the world that isn't at the absolute center coupled with an inability to take joy in living a life for something other than oneself are traits of another legit illness we ignore: Donaldus Trumpfluenza Clinical Narcissism. I'd be 100% unsurprised to find that a person suffering from this condition could become severely depressed. The whole world serves to remind them that they are wrong every day, and there's not really any hope between getting help (hard to impossible) or just mentally shattering.

This is cart before horse though. From my experience, people like that aren't usually just born like that. They're made into it. Clinical narcissism is a reaction to being broken in some way. And since it's based on a fundamentally warped view of reality, the fact that reality is proving them wrong is already not a problem. In fact, malignant narcissism, the worst kind, is probably treatment-proof, since they'd never accept help from a therapist since they'd never allow anyone to cure them but themselves.

I agree with this. I struggled to write what I did without making it sound blamey, because I've done a lot of work with and lived my life with folks that have medical conditions that affect their behavior, and there are plenty that are outside a person's control. Suicide is not a valid treatment for life's problems.

I mean, don't get me wrong, there are circumstances that do justify the right to end one's life on their own terms. It's just that, to me, those tend to be on the lines of terminal illness or dysfunction in a way that simply cannot be treated, whose impact is so great on one's life that it's effectively forcing them to suffer to keep them living, by their own standards. Things like being paralyzed from the neck down, or being diagnosed with a disease that effectively destroys the brain.

While I may disagree with a person on their choice, I will never judge them for making it. I can't truly find fault with a person for making what I find in myself to be an immoral decision under extreme circumstances. Can I really say I wouldn't do the same, and my own moral logic be damned? No. In this regard I am as human as they are.

I will say that the quadriplegic example hits home for me, as I've known many people with this affliction who lived very meaningful lives. Some of them live lives I look up to as exemplary in terms of achievement. I mean hell, look at Stephen Hawking. He was/is one of the greatest men of our time.

At the same time I find it sad beyond all else when a person chooses to take their own life under any circumstances. The tack to take in my opinion isn't to try and glorify/normalize suicide, it's to deal with the idea that a person's life can only have meaning under ideal circumstances or when it meets certain criteria. It makes me really glad to see more and more people generally waking up to the idea that mental illness isn't magic, or fake, and we must learn how to treat it.