If I am a disease at least I don’t hide away like a secret tumor unaddressed. Shine the light on me and all I have to say.
You’re the fear monger. Perhaps it’s you spreading the contagion.
I was trying to understand what you believe are the implications of your explanation, which I don’t feel I fully have. The rest of what you’re saying is insult unexplained.
How can honest questions be a strawman, anyway?
Oh you mean the post after that… that was not an intentional misrepresentation of your position, that was how I understood it.
K: And once again with the JUDGEMENTS instead of conversation. Suicide is a viable option despite your
shortsighted statements that it is quote “evil, selfish, stupid, and petty.” I do not have the ego you do to
say because it is not for me, it is not for anyone, ever for any reason. It may not be for me, but it may be for
you based on your reasons. There are no objective, absolute reasons to prevent the advocating for suicide
or the talk about suicide. I do not wish to play god and tell people what they can or cannot do with their
own self unlike you who wants to play god and tell people, NO YOU CAN’T, based on your own sense
of morality. Like the Christian who denies abortion rights and gay rights based on their religion, their
morality, their beliefs. The overarching principle here is not about suicide or gay marriage or abortion,
but about people’s right to act freely in matters of their own person. If a person wishes to drink to excesses
that is a private act until it interferes with another person and than it becomes a public act and subject to
public laws and obligations. Suicide is a private matter, not subject to the public laws until it interferes
with someone else, such as leaping from a building and hitting someone, then no.
Kropotkin
Very, vulgarly, and sickeningly pathetically … “diseased”.
Carriers and promoters of the contagion.
[/quote]
K: James is a Nietzsche wannabe which is why he answered in this manner.
Kropotkin
I disagree, Peter. To my knowledge, James isn’t very fond of Nietzsche.
There is a substantial difference between careful and quite analytical discussion and advertising (promotional or otherwise).
Thinking analytical people study the details causes and effects in order to resolve solutions to problems. They might also have to discuss whether something is actually a problem or not. But the very much larger part of the world is NOT made of “thinking analytical people”. Most of the world, especially today, is made of people mindlessly, inattentively presuming from very narrow minded quips that the take aware from other discussions. Advertising depends on such behaviors and promotes anything to help cause people to be that way. It is good for their business. And they are very good at their business. Thus today, people are not attentive, confused, very often depressed in futility, and not in control of their own impulse behavior, just as advertisers want, else the effectiveness of advertising would be stifled by rationality.
So living “responsibly” within such a society means that one cannot just continually discuss any subject without expecting some idiot to take it the wrong way or make something seriously bad out of it, no matter how innocent the discussion had been. In short, people have to be more careful of what they say within a society of confused and hyper-reactive people.
That does NOT mean that certain things should never be discussed. It means that discussion of certain subjects should be toned down and limited, preferably to only “thinking analytical” or “truly philosophical” people, not the general confused and hyper-reactive populous. Else it is like continually discussing how to create a lethal virus in your own basement. How long would it be before the wrong kind of people were doing it?
Suicide is a topic that weighs on the mind and like gravity eventually wins. Some people in your society want the eventuality and thus promote it at every turn and by any means. They believe in “getting rid of the weak”, "getting rid of those other people (usually whites), and “reducing the world population”. And of course, some are just duped into having fun messing with other people and getting a high from the power to do so.
Many people died over the last week, some of them famous people. Do you talk about them? They had causes that were cast upon them. Wouldn’t that be a more relevant topic to analyze? But look where the advertising is. It is on the suicide, suicide, and the suicide, “oh and did I mention,… the suicide?”.
Advertisers well know what comes from continual discussion, people get duped into buying the product. When an advertiser sells something that is found to cause death, such as cigarettes, the advertisers are sued and laws are made against such advertising. Is that considered an infringement on freedom of speech?
Speech is not free even by the US Constitution when it is clear that such speech causes death (or even malignant reputation, such as slander).
An irresponsible person behaves how ever he pleases disregarding the effects that his speech might bring and thus laws have to be made to confine him. By continuing to be irresponsible, more and more restrictive laws are forced into being. All signs of freedom disappear. But laws are not made against speech that is causing things that governors and wealthy business men want to happen. Laws are made against a white person saying any negative about a Black or Mexican, but not against the reverse. The reverse is desired by those making the laws.
So it is left up to individuals to hold to their own laws of behavior, else the abuse from governments (of whatever type) is inevitable. That abuse includes creating the causal factors for suicide, creating the inspiration that misleads chosen people to be tempted by the thought of suicide. All they need to do is get people to talk about it continually until it finds its mark. And exactly what do you see happening right now? Talking about the causes of the many other deaths? Or talking about the good and bad of suicide, keeping it in the forefront of the confused minds?
You have very little control over who is hearing your speeches. Speaking carelessly in such a situation is entirely YOUR responsibility … until further laws take even that away from you.
Setting “the genie free” is begging for it to be re-confined, and you along with it, by others with their own agenda, exclusive of you.
James,
I believe there is a responsibility bound to speech. While I tone down and imperfectly attempt to begin a discussion, I also feel that we cannot afford to defer to the so-called analytical or truly philosophical people you suggest. Regular people must be able to have a mature discussion about suicide. I think we easily fall into quips and reactivity because we are not used to having a collaborative conversation, but I think we are more than capable of it. Our quiet fragmentation and non-attempt to relate to each other has got to be just as thundering an error in this issue as our being taken the wrong way during the course of a challenging discussion. When people attempt to meaningfully understand one another I think we often exemplify what is worthwhile about life. Even falling short of a clear and unanimous understanding, maybe the bonds and meaning formed through our communications are strong enough that no one can fail to see that something is valuable and that we simply do not promote suicide to the challenge of life. Let the promotion of desperation and depression fall to the promotion of something stronger. Regular people have become extraordinary by accomplishing similar things together. You have to have a bit of faith in your fellow man and woman for this to work.
So you are of the impression that you or “we” can control what the audience “takes away” from a discussion. “If WE (all) speak just right, “WE” can contain the problem and replace it with something better”.
Two words to consider again;
A) IF
B) WE
Of course firing a gun into a crowd without having such control is usually considered irresponsible. But perhaps IF you fire the gun with the best intentions, everything will be forgiven as blame can always be shifted onto the dead guy (as the police have become so accustom to doing).
“We shouldn’t be suppressed from firing guns into a crowd … as long as we aim carefully!!”
We don’t have to speak just right or come up with a solution to influence others including ourselves in a positive way. It is necessary that we have some faith in each other and, as you said, tone it down and think responsibly about what we are saying. It is not the goal to totally control what anyone thinks.
[tab]
This is a pretty violent metaphor for what is going on in this very thread. You could have made your point another way, but you chose to say that.[/tab]
What part of;
“There is no such thing as bad publicity”, did you not understand?
As long as you are continuing to bring it up (and notably more than other causes of death), you publicize the thought, “firing the gun into a crowd” and you have no intention of controlling what they do because of it.
How about yelling "FIRE!!" in a theater? It certainly isn’t your fault what people do because of the fire. They are adults.
Do you not think I understand the phrase? I don’t know why you are asking me this unless you are implying that I should quit posting in this thread.
James, I don’t know how to respond to this. I bring it up because I am concerned and because I have seen and felt the destructive forces of silence and isolation in a social context.
Well, now that you caught the clue, take the hint.
They have “professional people” to handle such things. And it’s not that I have a high respect for those people, but You are not one of them.
Alright. Goodnight, James.
I though that was a very moving message.
I took it as a way to deal with the loss and to say something nice that people will feel.
Naturally you can read all sorts of suicide-stimuli in this, but I don’t believe in these things. Absent as an act of idealistic warfare, suicide is not something you get talked into. It’s a last resort way beyond when all talking has ceased to be meaningful.
You don't know me. If I knew more of you "Respect and honor your choice" types when I made my own suicide attempts back in the day, I'd be dead dead. The road to the hospital was paved by people who didn't give a shit and dressed up their lack of concern as 'respecting choices'. No, you wouldn't want to come off as judgmental or shallow, much better that people die instead so the living can go on not stepping on each other's toes. Backing off and respecting people's choices doesn't save lives, it's a way of staying back, cowardly watching people die while patting yourself on the back for it. You talk about understanding, you give me bumper stickers.
Nothing [i]always[/i] helps. The question is, does it help [i]more often[/i] than romanticizing or de-moralizing suicide? I'm not talking about how to deal privately with individuals with whom we know every little detail. I'm talking about the general stance of society.
K: I am not bowing down to any elitist crap about how certain conversations must be limited to philosophical
types which is total bullshit and more of your nietsche wannbe crap. And your crap about confused and hyper-active
people is just that crap. How long before the wrong type of people? Really, seriously and of course, being
someone who is serious and philosophical, you get to decide which people are the right people and which
people are the wrong people, which is bullshit of the highest order and stinks of all those causes
like racism and facism in which an elites gets to decide for the rest which topics are ok and which topics leads
those weak minded confused, inattentive, not in control people to just want to kill themselves. That is
just you trying to pretend how you are superior and in control and not confused and you can decide
who is inferior and who is superior (and of course you are superior as decided by James) This topic is
really not about suicide for you but about how great James is and how superior he is, not those weak
and out of control people who might be influenced by his great and powerful words. GET OVER YOURSELF.
You are just trying to cover up your bullshit with babble about laws and freedom, like they are
words you actually give a shit about, you don’t.
I have been alive for a long time and the one thing I have learned is words only have meaning, power, if you let them. Someone calls a person “stupid” or “retard” or “dumb” or “nigger” those words only have
power if you let them have power. I was born handicap and I used to let those words have
power over me, but not for a long time. Call me what you want, I will not let those words have power
over me and I now have power over those words. So instead of limiting conversation to
those topics already approved by the great and powerful James, open up the topics to whatever
the topic needs to be. So yes talk about suicide because it is the responsible thing to do. Because hiding
talk because it MIGHT influence someone into doing SOMETHING, that is condescending and elitist bullshit.
Kropotkin
Fuse, I would have told james to eat shit and die for suggesting to quit a post because you wasn’t a “professional”.
and couldn’t speak competently about a topic. That is actually part of the problem waiting for the “professional”
to add their two cents in. You have thoughts and experiences that are valuable to any conversation
and waiting for the “professional” is bullshit. Don’t ever, EVER allow anyone to browbeat you into
ending a conversation or a post or anything. James is probably in his mother’s basement wacking off
over how he got you to end a conversation. If you got something to say, regardless of what others
might claim, say it. Words will not hurt anyone unless they allow it.
Kropotkin