Is suicide a legitimate solution?

While I get what you're saying, if I'm afraid of one person commuting suicide because it'll hurt someone else, and not me personally, is that really selfish? It's peoples jobs to be good role models for everyone else, and if I see someone being a bad influence on someone else, even if they aren't a bad influence on me personally, I'm not going to be happy about it, and I don't see that as selfish in any way.

It's something I can deal with, but I'm not going to hold other people to that standard. The standard I am going to hold other people to is to deal with living, because less people die when that philosophy's followed, as opposed to the "tolerate suicide" philosophy.

It's like the whole "it's selfish to not donate" versus "it's selfish to ask for donations" situation. The thing is that I'm not asking for any charity for my own sake, it's for others.

It's a senseless waste of life. However I would only condone it to those who have suffered/are suffering extreme physical pain. (Chemotherapy, and other medical miseries)

This is a sensitive subject, as such I'll leave it at that.

So because it is a sensitive subject you call it a «senseless waste of life» and leave it? Wow... If that's how you handle sensitive matters, I don't even wanna see how you handle tough ones.

As for your argument, you seem to slice euthanasia up and bring it to suicide. I'm not sure what you mean by «medical miseries» so I won't go into it; at least not for now but a person going through chemotherapy still has a fighting chance. So, you condone people who commit suicide during a struggle they may win? Seems counter-intuitive to me.

You could say by that you mean you condone suicide when people are suffering and can't find a way to improve things. The suffering part is hazy but it applies, like I said, to euthanasia and also to mental illness. I wonder, would depression fit into what you call «medical miseries»? In a courtroom I would be accused of leading the witness but I'm sure you'll find, if you read up on the subject or watch Stephen Fry's documentary, that yes, it should fit.

Regardless of whether you agree with that you have to agree mental illness causes physical pain. If so, where's the distinction? Why do you think a cancer patient's suicide can be condoned and others are «senseless waste[s] of life»?

I'm really having a hard time understanding your comment. The last thing I can't grasp is when you make a distintion between people who have suffered and are suffering from things like chemotherapy. Why would anyone who is done with chemotherapy kill him or herself?

Whether or not it's a legitimate solution, people who succeed don't deal with the consequences.

Just the family and friends.




In some ways I can understand it, I don't know how schizophrenics are able to handle more than themselves in their heads.

I don't understand the stupid 'my girlfriend of three days broke up with me, I'm going to slit my wrists' shit.

It depends what you have to be suicidal about if you for example have an injury that will cause you pain for the rest of your life then iwould say yes

Chemotherapy is one of the most horribly debilitating, mentally exhausting, and spiritually shredding treatments anyone can endure. You lose your hair, you vomit just about everything you eat, your skin becomes frail, you become more sensitive to UV light, your body eats your muscles in order to sustain itself because you can barely keep anything down, your body can reject the medicine and have even worse repercussions like paralysis etc etc The list goes on... I had a friend go through that for 4 years, he was in such pain he could barely speak. He gave up, and said he didn't want to live a life ruled by pain and misery. He was 25 last year, or would've been. He had a fighting chance, and he knew the risks. It didn't work in his favor, his cancer only got worse and he had the plug pulled on himself.

So please, don't patronize me or call me insensitive, or insult me, I apologize for being crass now and in my previous statement.

To clarify, I condone suicide when you're fighting a battle for your life that you cannot win, that causes you pain and suffering beyond comprehension. Such as Cancer, or Lou Gehrig Disease, etc...

I cannot speak for depression or mental illness. I would however love to hear your side/view on the matter. It's your Floor, nateriver10

A person has a right do whatever they want with their lives even if it goes against society or the moral majority. The world's a crappy place. I personally don't see suicide as an option for myself unless I'm being subject to extreme torture or the mind is being destroyed. As far as other people go if they aren't willing to float, you can't help them swim so let them drown.

Depends on what you mean by legitimacy. As far as I know, there aren't any countries that downright ban suicide. Debates like this usually rely on an individual's morality.

Personally I think suicide is a legitimate solution, not one to be used thoughtlessly but legitimate nonetheless. The argument of it being a cowards way out mainly comes from those who are not considering suicide therefore an outside opinion. Honestly, if you're planning on (legitimately)suiciding, why would you even care about an outside opinion.

In regards to most over hyped suicide cases that get spread all over the news like that whatsherface that drank bleach. People these days are too weak willed.

I'm sorry to say, your rather strong description of chemotherapy is completely lost both on me and on the discussion. You see, I didn't give my views on suicide. I do not think it is always wrong. In other words, I agree that it can be condoned on certain situations, chemotherapy, on occasion being one of them.

You call it a «senseless waste of life» but you condone it in one particular situation. My point is that, the situation in which you condone it is the situation in which people commit suicide. So I don't see how you can say some suicides are senseless wastes and others are not. You do say a battle that cannot be won but a) you can't really know that and b) what if battles againt depression can't be won either? We can't really know that, now can we? It will depend on each person.

By the way, a bit of a slip up on your part. You tell me not to call you insensitive in the same sentence you admit being crass... So, were you NOT insensitive or am I not allowed to speak the truth? Not really looking for an answer to this one...

Lastly, I have no views on mental illness I can share. My point is that I quite simply, didn't understand how you would say some (maybe most) suicides are wastes and others can be condoned. Mental and social problems often lead to suicide too and my point is that, depending on each case, they may be factors as strong as cancer. That's why I didn't see your distinction. It seems as though you were establishing a silly false dichotomy in which people commit suicide either because they are in horrible physical pain or because they go «you know what I feel like? Some death...».

One last thing, unlike hollywood movies would have us believe, in 99.9999999999999% of the cases, it is never a good idea to talk about your personal motives when trying to prove a point. No disrespect but it just makes you look biased which is understandable but suggests a cloudy judgement.

I could be wrong but your sentence seems ultimately broken... Thus taking suicide out of the question? Do you mean «Thus I'd be committed to taking suicide out of the question? Anyway, I don't get it.

Still, I wanna take a guess. You make a very easy and cheap safety net there with the straight jacket reference. So, you accept that there is a state of mental illness in which suicide can be legitimate. It's a start. The cheapness of your argument is based on the idea that you seem to, much like Billy Joel, go to extremes. It's either mental illness or «my girlfriend dumped me». Well, the second scenario is obviously not one in which suicide is legitimate. However, I think you have to accept that there are stages of depression that lead people to remain functional and, yet, suicidal. If you don't accept these and if you think it is either boo-ooh-ooh or straight jacket, I'm afraid we have nothing more to discuss. But, as I've said, I barely understood your comment.

Committed to a mental institution. Dunno how you missed that.

Committed to a mental institution. Dunno how you missed that.[/quote]

Maybe it was because, as I've said before, the sentence is ultimately broken being that the premise does not add to the conclusion both in logical terms and gramatical ones. I did explain that too. Dunno how you missed that.

The sentence is a little awkward, but it still makes sense and is far from "broken" grammatically. "If you were suffering from the mental issues that come close to the heavier cases of symptoms caused by dealing with chemotherapy, you'd be committed (to a mental institution), thus -unless you're incredibly dexterous (implying you can escape a straightjacket)- taking suicide out of the question (because you can't escape from a straightjacket because you've been committed because the intense symptoms, which are the reason you want to commit suicide in the first place).

That's the logic train I'm getting. Doesn't really seem that broken to me. The sentence sure as hell isn't broken grammatically. By no means is it a grammatically perfect sentence, but it's perfectly understandable.

His sentence is fine, he misuses one type of punctuation but I don't think you have the right to speak on that.

He argues that if you where showing mental symptoms extreme as the symptoms shown by patients of chemo, it would be so obvious to the world that you were insane you would be institutionalized.
The only part he left out is "that in institutions they take away all means to endanger yourself and others", therefore taking suicide out of the question. But that was pretty obvious, now wasn't it?

This seems to be the problem I'm having with arguing with people over Fakku. They don't agree with my opinions even when I present facts, instead of subjective views.

Look, sentences aren't people. Gramatical perfection applies to them. It isn't subjective, see? So, either a sentence is perfect (ex. The man runs.) or they are not (ex. The man ran tomorrow.) A perfect sentence doesn't really entail Shakespeare. So either it is perfectly structured or it is not.

Besides, aside from language we are talking about one of my favorite subjects: rhetoric. And in rhetoric, either you are understood or not. Granted, it may be because the ones listening are idiots but if the people you are talking to are making an effort to understand, not your views, but your words, you are walking on thin ice.



The right? It amazes me how people throw around expressions like they're in a snowball fight. What do you mean the right? Anyway...

It's not about punctuation. It is mostly about logical structuring. Basically, arguments are made up of premises and a conclusion. To make it a valid argument, your conclusion needs to be «forced» by the premises. In his argument, not only does that not happen but it also isn't transmitted through the language. His conclusion is «Thus [irrelant sidenote] taking suicide out of the question». That's how the argument ends. What can I do with that?

Oh, sweetie... Take a shower please, you reek of bias. Now you are filling up the gaps by saying what he allegedly left out? I did say I tried to guess his argument and I did say I felt completely stupid doing it but I ask of you, Socrates, since when is it a good move to assume your, shall we say, opponent said something he didn't?

People here know fuck all about basic logic. If you think taking leaps of faith in guessing what your opponent says is a good idea I might as well back away slowly, the same way I do with crazy people preaching in the street.

The problem is that your mistake was a structural one which made your point difficult to comprehend. Mine was a missing «m». Aside from that missing letter, I fail to see the error. Unlike you, I wouldn't be a sissy and I can take it when people prove me wrong. Go ahead. English is not my first language so I might be missing something.

Also, why is it such a big deal that I went «after other people's sentences»? You were talking to me and I replied instead of ignoring you which would be more rude. I said I couldn't understand you and explained why. Why am I the bad guy? Things are good or bad. When they are bad, people have to speak up so they can be fixed. Unless, like most people I meet, you prefer to remain in ignorance rather than admit to be wrong.

Rest assured, I shall never forget that the word grammar has two m's.

What's the prize for winning this?