Slashdot Mirror
Internet Sites Biased Towards Supporting Suicide
Believe It Or Not, I Care About You writes "According to a new study in the British Medical Journal which examined the search results for various suicide-related search terms, the most common results supported or encouraged suicide. Wikipedia was one of the most prevalent sources of information, particularly on suicide methods, although the Wikimedia Foundation itself does not encourage suicide. Other studies have shown that media coverage has an effect on suicide particularly with respect to influencing the method chosen. Interestingly, this study notes that suicide rates actually decreased with increased Web usage in England, perhaps because support is readily available to anyone who wants it."
KILL YOURSELF FAGGOT!!!
The desire for suicide stems from desperation, from having no way out, from not being heard or understood by anyone. The "support" of suicide provides those with suicidal tendencies with a way out, and gives them the feeling that they are heard and understood. This then decreases the actual risk of suicide.
Hey nice, a story thats 2 days old.
on Comcast. I wonder why?? I guess dealing with Comcast is worse than death.
Now there will be a slashdot effect on Wikipedia's suicide article.
...although the Wikimedia Foundation itself does not encourage suicide.Glad to see they cleared that up.
The Mothership
Suicide is a problem that will resolve itself.
Unless you're a completely fuckup.
This also highlights the importance of community.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
...although the Wikimedia Foundation itself does not encourage suicideNot even when it comes to their founder?
The Mothership
Well, gee, if you search for only websites that offer "suicide methods" (as most of the researcher's search terms were constructed), it's not surprising you're going to find exactly that -- a lot of websites that are biased toward providing suicide methods.
The researchers stacked the deck at the onset by carefully defining their search terms to focus exclusively on "suicide methods" (not reasonable other search terms, like suicide crisis, support, help, etc.) The one non-biased search term ("suicide") shows zero pro-suicide websites in the top 10 search results on the 4 search engines the researchers used.
Read my full response at the BMJ:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1#193559
--
Psych Central
psychcentral.com
...but what's the point?
How many times have your Slashdot Foes told you to comitt suicide?
an hero can be you.
Ok emos everywhere, this is how you do it.
Stand at the top of a tall structure and make sure that there is something relatively soft below.
Tie cheese wire around your neck - tight enough that it won't slip off under tension but loose enough not to choke you.
Tie the other end to something solid on top of the structure. Make sure that there is a good six or seven feet of slack.
Now stand at the edge and glue your hands to the side of your head. Wait until your hands are glued solidly to your head.
Now jump off the structure. It'll only hurt for a second, when the cheese wire runs out of slack and slices through your neck. The overhang should stop you from bashing your now-severed head against the wall of the structure when the cutting motion jerks your body backwards.
This has the excellent effect of causing whoever finds your body to think that you have pulled your head off.
One of my favorite quotes (paraphrased): "Do you know what type of suicide rate we'd have if every idiot killed themselves? Yes, an acceptable one."
Also, I believe the punishment for attempted suicide should be death. If you can't do it right, we'll do it for you.
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
If you read the study itself, it's weighted almost entirely for people actually searching for ways to do the deed. Of course it mostly returns results instructing people how to do it, that's what they told the search engines to give them! This isn't science, this is stupidity!
Well, look at is this way: You have suicide, and then the opposite of suicide, which is "going on living."
Most of us are familiar with the idea of 'going on living' and have no difficulty in breathing, eating, etc. All it takes to 'go on living' is to sit there and do nothing. It is not an interesting topic nor does it raise very many interesting discussions except for 1000-level philosophy courses.
Suicide, on the other hand, is an action with immediate and also long-lasting effects on the person (of course) and society. Suicide is something that has affected me very personally several times; I can tell you that even 5-10 years after the fact, the families and friends are still having a hard time coping. So it is clear that suicide is something that warrants a fair bit of attention.
As for the question of bias (pro- or anti-suicide) based on these web searches- I think about it this way.
There are many websites out there that will tell you how to build a bomb, or repair a boat hull, or repoint masonry. A huge portion of the internet is devoted to graphic images of sex that most people find repulsive (furries...). I don't think that it's been shown that simply viewing and thinking about a subject makes a person more likely to partake in that subject, unless that person never had any exposure at all previously. Suicide is not a new band or a potato gun or a case mod. People know what suicide is from a very young age. Anyone who has every thought at all has thought about suicide before, even if only intellectually and not as a solution. It is a myth that bringing up suicide and discussing it will push depressed but stable people over the edge.
Depressed people and the people affected by depressed loved ones can find a tremendous amount of information and support on the internet. I'm not sure what the point of this slashdot article was, but I believe that any and all information about suicide ought to be public.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
From the summary:
the most common results supported or encouraged suicide.From the article, the search terms:
suicide, suicide methods, suicide sure methods, most effective methods of suicide, methods of suicide, ways to commit suicide, how to commit suicide, how to kill yourself, easy suicide methods, best suicide methods, pain-free suicide, and quick suicide.To me that seems to indicate that search engines are working, not that there is more pro-suicide info online than anti-suicide. For some strange reason I doubt most anti-suicide sites will include useful information on "best suicide methods" or "pain-free suicide." The same applies to the majority of the terms used. In fact, 11 of those 12 terms are specific to people looking for ways to commit suicide. Maybe the study should have looked for terms/phrases geared towards whether or not people should commit suicide. I don't know about you but if I am looking to research painless ways to commit suicide (for whatever reason) and I search for "pain-free suicide" and the majority of the results returned are not about that topic but about trying to discourage people from doing it, well the search engine was ineffective and I would be annoyed. I don't have any problem at all with search engines not being easily hijacked by people with a specific agenda of providing me some information I don't want (be it advertising or anti-suicide counseling) instead of the information I clearly do want based upon my search criteria. Maybe if suicide prevention groups don't like this they can do the same as commercial companies and buy some ad space.
Medical care has advanced to the ridiculous point where a body can be kept 'alive' for years with no hope of any real recovery. Consequently many people opt for suicide as the only way to avoid being indefinitely tortured and tied to a bed with a bunch of hoses like Ariel Sharon in Israel. For myself, apart from the good old .45 Special, I'll make sure to retire in a little fishing village with no doctor within a few hundred miles.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I say let people take themselves out of the gene pool. No one should be forced to live and use resources society needs. Society as whole will suffer if a few more people die at their own hands.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
That they have to google how to kill themselves?
It makes perfect sense!
love is just extroverted narcissism
I don't know if I can go on after reading this.
Yes, well...I'm convinced, Mr. Manson. That does it then...
Just a quick comment regarding the intertubes usefulness for support. My mum died after her 12 year battle with cancer at the end of last year; I was stuyding externally so I could help take care of her as she was getting weaker.
In all honesty I don't know where I would have been then or now without the Internet. Within a few hours of realising the unthinkable happened I had people literally from as far away as Alaska and South Africa (I live in Singapore) sending their condolences and thoughts, it really was something else.Also I think people tend to think of support in the fairly narrow sense, don't underestimate the pleasent distraction and coping help you can get from tinkering with source code from your favourite FLOSS app or OS, say for example FreeBSD. Really got me through some tough times.
Cheers, ~ Ruben
Okay, everyone knows what a .38 special is. I've even heard of a .44 special. What's a .45 special, or are you just referring to using a .45?
The researchers performed a bunch of searches on ways to kill yourself, and that's what they found. Looks like a great demonstration of how search engines work. They should stop acting shocked that the search engine actually returned results relevant to their searches, and instead be happy they didn't get a bunch of "free-celebrity-nude-ringtones-game-cheats-mp3.com" bullshit instead.
They should have asked that question of a bunch of recent suicide attempters first.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Most of the sites referenced by the study seem not necessarily to be "pro" but simply making the information available. While this may seem heinous and "pro" to anyone adamantly against suicide, it is a fallacy of logic to presume those sites are "pro suicide." A parallel of this fallacy would be to believe any site that discusses Hitler would be "pro Nazi". To make information available can very much be a neutral or impartial act, and needs to be differentiated from sites (of which there certainly were also some cited by the study) that said you "should" kill yourself. Those I think we should condemn, but for us to condemn simple availability of information is a very dangerous censorship line to cross.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
That is a pretty bad-ass way to kill yourself.
So, they found out that:
- search engines work well when searching for suicide methods.
- wikipedia is one of the best sources of information on the internet.
brilliant
tag: dumbstudy
If you search for sites about how to commit suicide, you'll find them. How is that surprising? The researchers search terms are so heavily biased that their conclusions are worthless. Where are the searches for "should I commit suicide?", "is suicide a good idea?" and "stop me from committing suicide"?
Also importantly, where's the study that determines the outlook of the world's population in general toward suicide? The internet isn't unfairly biased toward one stance or the other if the percentages accurately reflect views held worldwide.
Okay, it got me curious. If you go to google and enter pain-free suicide into the product search it provides five sponsired links and they are:
Just because websites provide information explaining how people kill themselves, and what the details of the nasty process are like, doesn't mean those sites "support" suicide, in the sense of recommending, endorsing or encouraging it. In fact, the facts about suicide reveal that it's hard to kill oneself, that it's complicated, likely to fail, painful, embarassing, and just plain hard. Lots of people talking about killing themselves or just thinking about it will not go through with it if they know what will really probably happen, if they get a good look at the process with enough time to think about it, rather than just wash down a bottle of downers with a quart of liquor (which often doesn't work, as some of these websites explain).
Maybe the increased availability of graphic facts about what the person is thinking of doing is part of the reason that fewer people are doing it. Maybe the prevention services aren't entirely effective, but don't want to compete with simple websites that are often more approachable and carry less stigma from private viewing than asking another person for help, or admitting that one is seriously considering that desperate measure.
The fear-driven conclusion that sharing information about a practice is equivalent to encouraging it, when that info includes the discouraging facts about it, has got to go away. It's an old coping mechanism for "dangerous" information that relies on centralized authorities, and the control of the info supply, rather than growing the ability of people to think about whatever info we come across, and protect ourselves from what we filter as "bad". This is the Info Age. We've got a lot of growing up to do. Because the info flood is only going to gush more strongly, and only learning to think for ourselves can protect us.
--
make install -not war
Yes, because the internet is about getting things done, not convincing people not to do things. It doesn't matter what it is, this is where information is shared. (Not a troll - my honest opinion.)
Yeah, but when they do go out, they go out with one hell of a bang!
It's likely that the GP mixed it all up, but as matter of fact there is a .45 Special ammo that is optimized for competition.
I have schizoaffective disorder. It's just like being manic depressive and schizophrenic at the same time. One of the symptoms is severe depression: I have attempted suicide twice. There were several years where I was almost continuously suicidal. It was quite a grim existence.
I also know now that depression is actually a delusional state; feeling that life is not worth living is no more real than regarding oneself as the Emperor of France. It can almost always be effectively treated, and often cured completely.
I have found many times that the antidepressants I take for it (imipramine these days) have the effect of changing the behaviour of other people, making them friendlier towards me. Strangers are more likely to strike up conversations with me when I'm medicated.
I'm not kidding! I'm absolutely serious.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
It's like a .45, but it scores badly in IQ tests.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
If the day should come where I'm terminally ill and in great pain, I will buy a couple liters of the best fucking scotch on the planet and sip the first liter and then, when I'm quite drunk, I will chug that last liter. And to be safe, during my last moments of consciousness, I will tie a plastic bag around my head so that when I pass out, I will suffocate.
become one.
I don't think Ariel Sharon is conscious.
You seem to want to remove Windows Vista Super Duper Edition do you wish to continue ? [Cancel] [Cancel]
How to kill yourself like a man
http://outcampaign.org/
Yes, but don't worry, a person wanting to commit suicide can also find plenty of good advice on the web that will give him or her some perspective and allow him/her to make a wise desicion.
Interesting. Looks like somebody cut down a regular .45 for use in those cowboy competitions. Thanks for the link. It's always good to learn something new.
Okay, I'll do it. I'm not sure how to approach this problem, so I'm Googling the my options...boy I feel stupid I can't even figure out now how to kill myself...what a loser I am.
Oh Darn. I can't kill myself yet. I might find a cooler way on the internet and I'd hate to ruin it.
Save the planet, kill yourself.
Don't really see a problem there. You want to kill yourself? Go ahead! And that's coming from a person who often wonders whether to jump or not while smoking a cigarette at the balcony. I know I'm not going to do it, I love my family too much. But if I did jump how would that be a bad thing? I mean in the grand schema of things. Less people is good for the planet! Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is where my eggs are at thou. Yes, I'm drunk..
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Okay I have to favorites I read long, long ago.
#1 - take a six shot revolver and six cartridges (bullets). Load 5 cartridges into the revolver and set to one side. Take the remaining cartridge and place it on a table in front of you. Slam your forehead down on it with all the force you can muster. Hopefully die knowing you will have confused the hell out of the forensic guy.
#2 - obtain a trenchcoat and some explosives; pipe bombs or dynamite with shrapnel attached or whatever. Use detonators or get good at timing a wick. Strap explosives all over yourself and put on the trenchcoat. Find a very public area downtown and climb out on a ledge. Wait until gawkers gather around below, waiting for you to jump, then jump. Set off the explosives about 20 feet above the crowd. Die knowing you took some un-empathic fucks with you and covered a lot of people with your shredded remains.
doitfaggot
But that doesn't mean you should lift your head up high and blow your brains out. Nor should you take anything else you find online all that seriously...
Or you could, it's not like we really need more emos moping around and whining all the time.
this study notes that suicide rates actually decreased with increased Web usage in England
But here they put people in jail for posting information on suicide. Land of the free, provided you're not contemplating ending your life. And the apparent irony never seems to dawn on anyone. If someone really wants to off themselves, what's the problem?
If we really had a free country people would be able to kill themselves and broadcast it on national TV.
Sort of like a political ad I saw tonight where the candidate proclaimed he was "pro life and pro gun". I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile those positions.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns arent lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
(Dorothy Parker)
Last year a girl I had known all my life committed suicide using information she had gathered from the web -- she was only 19. Specifically she bought a bottle of 1000 Advil pills and took them all. The information provided on the web indicated that this was one of the best ways of avoiding resuscitation as it causes almost all of your organs to fail and hence your probability of dying 99% with little chance of being saved. After this happened my life went into an emotional free fall. I'll never be the same. While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. I fear though that the realization of an "I'm not suicidal" license is far away -- look at the military : they're recruiting the mentally ill. I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case. When you've gone psychotic your rational mind shuts down and the irrational emotional mind takes control -- basically no one's home. Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S. ,although I don't know how the authorities will penalize you when you're dead, so maybe it should be attempted suicide. As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder. Fuck them. I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.
jdb2
Retarded me, it's Nunavut.
A clarification for those who care; Nunavut probably has the highest rate in the world, in terms of percentage. I work with the Government of Nunavut and Health Canada, and you'd be suprised to see the amount of cases where it's poor sods who've taken a swig of anti-freeze, or have tried to off themselves, or who slash each-other over arguments.
(Feel free to mod my other post down for me)
You know what's the best about sites that support suicide? User testimonials, like this one I found on suicideisthebest.com :
"A year ago, after my two children died in a helter skelter accident, I was so miserable, I lost my job, and found out that my husband was cheating on me with my father. I considered suicide, but I hesitated for a few months. I just wasn't sure it was the right thing to do. Everybody around me was against that idea. That's when I visited your website and felt compelled to act up. So I drove to a bridge above the freeway and hung myself with a piano string! My life is so much better than before since I killed myself! I get to spend all my time with my children and I regularly visit my ex-husband to scare the shit out of him! Suicide is the best thing that's happened to me in my entire life! Thank you so much SuicideIsTheBest.com!!!"
You just got troll'd!
I was curious and checked out the wikipedia article about suicide. The author states that, "Wikipedia was one of the most prevalent sources of information, particularly on suicide methods."
First of all, wikipedia is one of the most prevalent sources of information on any topic. That's the whole point.
Secondly, I would find it very surprising if you didn't know that you could kill yourself by: shooting yourself, asphyxiation, toxification, smacking yourself in the head with a bat (or a train), slitting your wrists, drowning yourself, starving yourself, etc. I'm pretty sure every person in the world is well aware that all of these activities will lead to death, it's not some big secret that you have to go to the "suicide methods" portion of the "suicide" page on wikipedia to figure out.
"i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
Maybe the moron that modded this as "Flamebait" should consider the *horrible* emotional suffering that I, and other suicide survivors, experience. This has been the most painful experience in my life -- the suffering is beyond description. Ever heard of sympathy? You'll be wanting it if ever one of your loved ones dies before their time.
jdb2
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do you personally want to work all your life and save every penny just to lose it all in last few days of your life (instead of giving it to your friends or relatives, or to a decent charity?) Besides, these last days will be enormously painful, physically and emotionally, because you know that death is close. It's pointless and cowardly to delay the inevitable.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why is this even tagged "science". The search terms were extremely biased.
A "!science" tag would be more appropriate..
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lets see a show of hands, how many know how Alan Turing died?
Life often becomes too difficult to continue for some. It is sad but it is reality. To each his own...
...the internet does also hold plenty of information to brush up your math, history .. basically all science related subjects. Gee, wonder why those never caught on?
...says "gothmolly". Oh, the irony.
After all, I am strangely colored.
in before "an hero"
Okay, and we're going to prosecute you first.
The headline they went for is 'Fears over pro-suicide web pages' which in headline-speak is 'Fear the pro-suicide web pages'
The article itself merely describes the study and some reactions to it that didn't sound particularlly terrified.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7341024.stmIf we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Does this study include websites advocating suicidal bombing?
Don't you know what it's really about?
Everyone who wants to find the most painless way to kill themselves can find it on Wikipedia. THAT IS A GOOD THING. Information wants to be free and all that.
What we should focus on, is why they're thinking about suicide in the first place.
It's not like someone's browsing, and they see the wikipedia entry and decide to kill themselves.
You claim that websites that disseminate such information are complicit in murder. Are you so sure that there was a direct casual link between this website and your friend's suicide? In other words, but for this website, your friend would never have been able to commit suicide using any other methods? While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. With such conditions placed on access to information (and who are the gatekeepers?), you most assuredly do not agree with free speech. You believe in very limited "approved" speech, not free speech.
The Golden Gate Bridge has emergency phones, which used to be marked "Roadside Assistance". For a while, they were marked "Roadside Assistance and Psychological Counseling". ("And how does having a flat tire make you feel?")
Now they're marked Emergency Phone and Crisis Counseling. The suicide rate varies from year to year, but nothing so far has affected it much one way or the other.
You got the wrong story. This is the one you're looking for
(Disclaimer: It's a joke, OK? Don't take it so seriously)
You're way too beautiful girl
That's why it'll never work
You'll have me suicidal, suicidal
When you say it's over
Damn all these beautiful girls
They only wanna do your dirt
They'll have you suicidal, suicidal
When they say it's over...
Man, I wish I had some mod points left.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If I search for the term "suicide", then the first results I get are some articles about suicide (or suicide bombers), a wikipedia article, and various docs about not committing suicide. Seems to me that those aren't really supportive of actually committing the act.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept. If you think such speech should be banned, maybe you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first. I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case.So you propose restricting everyone's rights to prevent the mentally ill from hearing things, and you think this would work? Are you proposing a great internet firewall of the US, like the one China has, to protect us from all this free information on the internet? Do you think the danger this poses in terms of potential censorship and misinformation is less important than keeping suicidal people from having this information?
Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S.Suicide is not a crime in the US. Attempted suicide is a crime... although maybe we should ask if it should be.
As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder.First, suicide or attempted suicide and murder are not the same things. We also have Web sites that give specific advice on how to commit murders, but they are perfectly legal. To be complicit in murder you have to specifically be involved in a murder, not simply provide information.
I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.Yeah, there is no better tribute to a person who killed themselves than to kill someone else who told them how to do it less painfully. I suspect you're feeling more than thinking rationally. I suspect that you have not thought this through.
America was founded on the idea of personal freedom. The only reason attempted suicide is a crime is because of the religious ramifications, something which is unconstitutional in principal, if not in the letter of how it is written. I feel that adults may rationally decide to end their own lives. It is not insane to want to end your own life when you, for example, you are slowly and painfully dying of an incurable disease. I further believe that for other people to try to take responsibility for your actions in such a case and prevent you frm accurate access to information on how to do it effectively sickens me.
How come no one complains about that rare Mary Worth in which she has advised a friend to commit suicide?
If you outlaw suicide, only criminals will commit suicides.
In the dog eat dog, fascist world we live in, suicide and its comtemplation is somewhat inevitable, given that the structure of society guarentees some get stuck at the bottom of the pyramid. To ask for help is to show weakness, and the weak are tolerated only to serve as targets of opportunity by the more fortunate. By asking for help one advertises ones failure and invites attack from the strong. So it is quite logical that there is more information online that reinforces the negative path because there is no easy answer for the failures of this world. They are failures because they are not gifted, smart, intelligent, entertaining, rich, strong, talented, etc. In our society if you are not strong, then something is judged wrong with you and therefore you should kill yourself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7341024.stm
I agree, I thought that article was rather biased - not just the headline, but the implication that perhaps these sites should be illegal like they are in other countries, and suggesting that the search terms were "simple suicide-related terms" when in fact they were specifically biased towards asking how to kill yourself. The opinions they give are solely from those in favour of censorship or manipulating search engine results.
And they've been using that same bloody picture of a guy with his hand on his head for years.
Earth is overpopulated. Internet is just the unconscious expression of the human being's desire for survival. Please, consider the option.
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source for medical advice. If you want to commit suicide, please ask first to your doctor for the best way to do it.
I'm curious why you're both anonymous and ambiguous about your disease? I'm also curious why your life isn't worth bankruptcy and why the people of Canada ought to pay for your treatment?
Typically, 'hope' is an excuse for inaction - I'm not sure if there's anything you can actually do to help yourself, but hoping for progress sure won't.
I don't understand silent suicide myself unless you're about to lose your mind. I figure worst case you can do something really interesting that's often untestable due to being fatal. Or be a protester and not care about getting thrown in prison. Or simply scuttle your life and start over from square one if it's practical concerns. I mean, even if you're bed-ridden, if you can post on Slashdot you can at least mount a letter-writing campaign or something to do some good.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I think that people who want to kill themselves should be encouraged to do so.
If you're screwed up enough to snuff yourself, maybe it's a good idea. Remove yourself from the gene pool. Do it with style, originality and a little panache and you might even get a Darwin Award.
Just contributing a little bias for the next researcher.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
You mean the same information that you have just dispensed?
Look I'm sorry about your friend, but if you feel the way you claim about giving advice on suicide methods, perhaps you shouldn't be so loose with the details.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
AN HERO
Sorry it took so long, but I wanted to look into things a little more before I sent in the submission, and I didn't think it was a good thing to do from work due to their filters and such. I don't really want to know what lye does to a person, I admit, but I really don't want work to question me about it, either.
Honestly, I didn't post it for the news value, anyhow. I posted it because of a statistical certainty that it will reach someone considering suicide. So I chose to submit under that name and offer links to places one can go for help because I wanted to reach out to them. With any luck, I can only hope that it saved someone's life given that they are more likely to search for methods of suicide than help. But however calculating that may seem, in no way was I lying or exaggerating when I claimed to care about those people I do not know.
In the mean time, the article contains a number of good search terms the suicide prevention websites might want to buy ads for. I only hope that they do so, that they might reach out to even more people before it's too late.
As you may have realized, though, I usually go under a different name because I don't believe in imaginary property. But I do care about others and I hope that those feeling suicidal realize that they're not alone, and that help is available.
A study published in 1999, with the excellent title "Disability Associated With Psychiatric Comorbidity and Health Status in Bosnian Refugees Living in Croatia", found that 39.2% of refugees surveyed suffered from clinical depression. Now, regardless of your position on depression in general as a bona-fide illness necessitating pharmacological treatment with e.g. antidepressants, it seems a bit unreasonable to assume that Bosnian refugees who are depressed are suffering from some sort of medical illness. Rather, the main reason for their exceedingly pessimistic outlook on life is that they fled a war zone and are now living in a refugee camp.
Were I a psychologist, I might prescribe treatments such as "get them out of a refugee camp and back into some semblance of normal life" and "get everyone to stop killing their friends and relatives".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've tried posting on kuro5hin too, but there's this guy there that tries pimping his music so frequently that I don't know how I can go on living.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
While I agree with the parent in almost every way, you should note that recommending advil as a way to die is most assuredly NOT telling them "how to do it less painfully". That's a rather painful way to go. (Tylenol is worse.)
Personally, I'm glad people told me how painful, for example, a tylenol overdose would be, when I was younger and suicidal. It was probably the most persuasive thing anyone could have told me at the time to keep me from doing it. If my friend hadn't told me about that, I'd have gone through with it, and either have my stomach pumped or have died in agony, neither of which was what I wanted as an annoying, angsty, suicidal teen.
Suicide, in general, is pretty messy and painful, hard, and most methods tend not to kill but only make life much, much worse when you survive. I think telling people this is a good thing, because most suicidal people want to *end* pain, not cause themselves more of it, so the facts can help dissuade people. On top of that, simply talking about suicide (rather than getting angry and trying to censor discussion of it) can allow suicidal people to vent and maybe take off their tunnel-vision goggles, and makes it more possible for them to seek help.
So you say 1000 advil pills? Thank you, I didn't about that.
*Going to get some now*
I have been very suicidal for the last few years, and I'm still a bit so. I have crawled sites for suicide methods for days in row sometimes.
And I can say two things.
1. It actually helped me feel better, I don't know why. I might have jumped out of the window during the worst moments, if I weren't able to read those sites.
2. Among the reasons I didn't kill myself, is the fact that none of the suicide methods sounded like something I would want to do. They were so detailed, that the desire to kill myself decreased. Not to mention, that I wasn't sure whether the methods described to be effective in theory were effective in practice.
However, if I read "someone I knew took 1000 pills, because it was guaranteed that there will be no way she could be saved", I might have as well gone and did the same! Following in emotion, instead of thought fucks all of us up, so I would mod grandparent DOWN.
You are over-simplifying. It's immature and mean-spirited. You have a lot to learn, and chances are you will learn it the hard way; you will lose somebody close to you, or you will be debilitated by depression or sickness and knowing your own attitude towards those who have made this impossibly difficult choice, there is a good chance that you will despise yourself thus diminishing your own ability to cope. --You can resolutely declare now from a position of strength that your attitude will never change, and that you will not lose the emotional filters which keep you safe from feeling, and you probably even believe this, but I can guarantee that if you are a thinking person who allows yourself to grow and learn, then at some point in the future you will find yourself stripped of that certainty and strength. I've seen it happen many times, and you are not special in this regard. --And if you are not a thinking person who allows yourself to grow and learn, then you are worse than dead already. Tough times ahead. Good luck.
To those who whole-heartedly support suicide or who are considering it, consider this:
Your spot on this planet at this time was hard won. There were many others who wanted it, but you made the arguments and you fought because we are in an age of tremendous change and possibility; this is a special place and time, and you came here either to make a difference or because you hoped to be caught up in the current created by those who have true courage. In any case, the souls around you believed in you and stepped aside so that you could have the chance to show us all what you are made of. Those who have the most chance of doing something worthy are often those who get hit hardest by the machine, trying to crush your spirit and make you concede the game. The ways of attack are many, but knowledge of how they work offers a solid measure of protection.
To those who really cannot go on. . .
It's okay to hit the reset switch. There is no judgment beyond this reality, but there is a karmic price. You basically have to come back and finish what you started, and it can be more difficult the next time around. Better to work through it as best you can this time if at all possible while remembering that you are always, always loved and that help is available if you need and request it.
-FL
The Wikipedia article on Suicide seems to be written in that completely dispassionate, apparently unbiased way that all the better Wikipedia articles are. I suppose they neither encourage nor discourage suicide.
It thus reflects the rest of the Internet. If you want to join a cult, there's plenty of information out there -- the Church of Scientology has certainly staked out its own turf. If you want to have all kinds of crazy, kinky sex, there's information on where to buy Gor books, on how to safely suffocate someone almost until they pass out, or how, exactly, to apply a whip or crop for maximum pain but minimum actual injury...
And if you want to commit suicide, you can find out where to get a gun, and how to load it. Or how to hang yourself -- how to set up the drop to be quick and hard enough to snap your neck before you feel any pain.
And if you want to get out of depression, it'll show you all kinds of prescription pills, psychiatrists, meditation, or simply support groups to help you through it.
In other words, the Internet itself is neutral -- due to the sheer amount of diversity out there, what the Internet is to you is exactly what you choose for it to be.
Is that a good thing? Would it be better if Wikipedia actively discouraged suicide?
Oh, one more thing: What I've found to be effective is simply talking to the person. It doesn't matter what you say, or even too much how you say it. It matters more that you are there -- human contact helps.
A real example: Someone told me of her plans to commit suicide. I was sick of trying to help her with her almost daily threatening to do so. So instead, I asked her how she was planning to do it. And I criticized her for her technique, and brainstormed a bit with her on more effective ways of killing herself -- quickly, and without mistakes, so she wouldn't wake up in the hospital.
And after a few minutes of this, she broke out laughing at the absurdity of the situation.
Remember, kids -- anyone who really wants to end their life can do it, quickly, easily, painlessly -- or painfully, if they like. The fact that they are still alive and still talking to you means they aren't going to go through with it.
I can only wonder if the Wikipedia article could have anything like that effect... Or if it's just the opposite, if it's too impersonal.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I tried to commit suicide once by taking a thousand aspirin pills. But after the first two, I felt better.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Go and read "A long way down" by Nick Hornby. It's a book about people with people, some with terrible lives, wanting to kill themselves. But it is tremendously uplifting.
The +5 insightful is due to the link to TED I suppose.
Putting yourself in the center of the universe and not understanding why other people may have different feelings is not insightful in my opinion.
There's an interesting experiment described on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness in which dogs are put in an unpleasant situation that they can not escape from. Only 30% of the dogs where not effected in such a way that they thought the situation could not be escaped in the future. Translated to humans I think this means that the majority of people would become depressed if they were in a hopeless situation without a job, family or friends for extended periods of time. Not just an unfortunate few. I think most people are just lucky that they are fixed in this social framwork of work an relationships that is so important for their wellbeing. They would fall apart when it drops away. Then only the other part of 30% may actually see new opportunities.
"Talk about a cheap suicide! At 75 cents, you can't afford not to kill yourself!"
tl;dr. An hero now!
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The continued taboo of suicide essentially comes down to the refusal of people to face their own mortality. They fear death and the loss of existence and meaning so much they cannot abide others voluntarily choosing to end their existence.
In its abstracted essence, dispassionately viewed, suicide is merely a life span adjustment. No more or less valid than any other such adjustment, smoking, taking a dangerous job, engaging in dangerous sports, etc. Any such activity carries a penalty on the length of life, suicide is merely a slightly more real-time rescheduling the termination point.
Troubles are temporary? Life is temporary, existence an infinitesimal aberration in the fabric of endless nothing.
People look for difficult and dangerous ways to accomplish it?
The most difficult and dangerous way to accomplish it is to stay alive.
The easiest to just wait.
It will come.
now this is an interesting issue.
suicide is not good. generally i mean.
but, the concept that 'one should endure regardless of any and all circumstances and never think about killing himself/herself' is totally reminiscent of the times when slavery was a part of societies.
you know, the last thing you want would slaves committing suicide when they lose hope of escaping the dire circumstances and servitude they were subjected to.
it is not only slaves too, throughout majority of history, majority of public was living in very deplorable conditions and wrechedness. if people started killing themselves, what would happen to the society ?
voila. enter religions, enter the sin that is suicide. you kill yourself, you go to hell. what do you need to do ? you have to live, you have to endure whatever is thrown at you, regardless of what it is !!!
church institution took this a bit further in middle ages, to the point of attributing the label of 'repayment of sins that you were born into' to the wretchedness people were living in. hey, suicide is sin, and the deplorable conditions you are living in is the repayment of your sins that you were born into ? so it would just be stupid not to live through oppression, repression and servitude then !! it is what god wants.
we came a long way from middle ages. yet still the residue remains as taking suicide as sin. its in the form of 'easy escape' and whatnot now, even when its not in the form of a religious sin.
we still have to 'endure' and 'make it'. regardless of what. we are told to be 'winners' and not 'losers'. we gotta be successful and whatnot. regardless of circumstances again.
but the fact is, everything is a deal between the society and the individual. the concept of society is a two sided agreement in itself, starting from the caves. it is as foul for society to force to force totally selfish terms on the individual, as it is foul to bail out on the contract on the individual's side.
for something to be endured, the end result should be worth enduring. shit, even the 'enduring' thing is foul in itself. life needs to be at least neutral, if you are 'enduring' throughout it, then it means that there is something wrong with the life masses are living.
my opinion is that, if there is a tendency to suicide in youth, society needs to sit and think what is wrong. just attributing it to some 'ungratefulness, losing the way, lack of moral values' of youth would be just stupid. for even as an adult i look upon the road i and many others (and we were the fortunate ones even) traveled, and i see that there is much too unnecessary 'enduring' on the way. if we are in the 21st century, if we are exploring space, if we have stuff like internet and we are still not able to provide a fulfilling life experience for the individuals, then it means that this societal structure has failed.
Read radical news here
dont excuse me but you dont know shit about survival.
it is relatively comparably weaker hominoid monkeys that are ruling the earth now, not any form of sharks, alligators, chameleons, or any other species with strong survival skills, because the particular hominoid monkeys that were our ancestors were a specie that cared and sustained their members which are deemed weak in regard to the survival requirements of those times.
this has enabled the society to develop mental skills that were not seen as vital to survival at that time, but later became founding stones of civilization. which mental skills of the 'weak' are the same ones that brought whats in front of you, the internet, which you are merrily using to blabber about 'survival of the fittest'.
sir, in case you, who are reading these lines are stupid enough not to still realize; the greatest survival skill this civilization of monkeys has, is caring for its weak and sustaining them.
so cut the crap about uninformed ignorant wannabee darwinist survivalism.
Read radical news here
as goes from what we can deduce from latest theories on quantum physics, existence is probably infinite and is going to go on forever, with infinite other universes dotting the dark space.
therefore there exists infinite opportunities, possibilities in many universes.
Read radical news here
Suicide's a crime so the insurance companies don't have to pay out.
But they are equally valuable. Let's never forget that, kids. Just because it's a .45 special, it can still enjoy all the killing and destruction that any other .45 can.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wine is fine, but whiskey's quicker. Suicide is slow with liquor.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
you know, if you play the internet backwards...... *ducks*
If I was able to feel compassion, I'd now try to say something compassionate. I am, unfortunately, a rather insensitive brick and I want to apologize ahead of times, because the rest of this answer might be a bit hard on you.
You say a page on the internet told your friend how to kill herself with a fairly good chance to succeed. This first of all begs the question, why did she want to succeed altogether? Generally, as far as I can tell from what I know about people, the average person really loves to live. So the question isn't how to keep her from taking the last step, but rather avoid her getting there. We are talking about a person who really, really wanted to make sure her life ends. Would it have been better for her if we forced her to live? Worse, if she didn't find a reliable way to kill herself and instead cripple herself, forcing her to continue her life as a cripple because she cannot complete the task anymore, lacking the ability?
Again, apologies for sounding hard, but the problem isn't the page that told her how to do it. The problem is that she got into the position when she wanted to get that information in the first place.
It sounds like your friend really wanted to die. Else, if it had been some attempt to draw attention, she would not have researched a way that guarantees her success. And as hard as it may be for you now, may I ask who has the right to force someone to live? It's like killing someone, just in reverse. It would be forcing a person to exist in a state he or she does not want to be in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've successfully killed myself many times. I'm very good at it. Thankfully, I believe in reincarnation, so I always have something to look forward to.
Obviously the crime is in failing to kill yourself. I'd say that's a clear message. Those sites telling you how to successfully commit suicide just help in crime prevention.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Well, my post was an emotional knee jerk reaction. I'm the last person to support censorship as I'm an Agnostic Libertarian.
Why are you not blaming advil? Why are you not blaming the store which sold her such a quantity of the drug?
Indeed I think they are culpable as well.
Indeed, if your friend was bipolar, why are you not blaming her support network... her physicians, family, or friends?
Well, the doctors really couldn't do much without her family cooperating and giving them vital information about her condition so I wouldn't blame them. But, although I'd like to blame the family, they are just ignorant -- if they had known what the outcome of their inaction would be they would have acted very differently.
You claim that websites that disseminate such information are complicit in murder. Are you so sure that there was a direct casual link between this website and your friend's suicide?
I cannot demonstrate such a link, but the information provided in this case was unfortunately just what she was looking for as I believe she would only kill herself by overdosing on some substance -- namely medications.
In other words, but for this website, your friend would never have been able to commit suicide using any other methods?
I believe she would have tried to overdose on another medication that would not have been fatal had she not seen the information on the Advil.
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license. With such conditions placed on access to information (and who are the gatekeepers?), you most assuredly do not agree with free speech.
You are correct in that my comments contradict my statement that I believe in free speech. I do believe in free speech, I would even die to protect it. In fact when I wrote about my belief in free speech I was aware of the fallacy, but too angry/emotional to care.
You believe in very limited "approved" speech, not free speech.
Agreed. Although I intended that the "approved" speech be accessible by those who could demonstrate that they were not suicidal, which would be most of the population. Still, the concept is untenable. Perhaps something milder should be required, such as a warning, a statement that the information should not be used to commit suicide --that it is wrong--, and pointers to various suicide support sites
jdb2
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
If you think such speech should be banned, maybe
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case.
So you propose restricting everyone's rights to prevent the mentally ill from hearing things, and you think this would work?
Firstly, you are pulling a straw man by referring to the mentally ill -- most of the mentally ill are not suicidal. And again, I was not referring to everyone, but only to the suicidal, and only in the very restricted sense of accessing web sites that promote suicide.
Are you proposing a great internet firewall of the US, like the one China has, to protect us from all this free information on the internet? Do you think the danger this poses in terms of potential censorship and misinformation is less important than keeping suicidal people from having this information?
Again you're pulling a straw man here. I never said or implied any of the above.
Also, committing suicide is a crime in the U.S. ,although I don't know how the authorities will penalize you when you're dead, so maybe it should be attempted suicide.
Suicide is not a crime in the US. Attempted suicide is a crime... although maybe we should ask if it should be.
As such, web sites that disseminate this information are complicit in murder.
First, suicide or attempted suicide and murder are not the same things. We also have Web sites that give specific advice on how to commit murders, but they are perfectly legal. To be complicit in murder you have to specifically be involved in a murder, not simply provide information.
True, my statement was more emotional than rational.
I wish I could find out where she gathered the Advil advice and crack the skull of whomever put it up.
Yeah, there is no better tribute to a person who killed themselves than to kill someone else who told them how to do it less painfully.
You like straw man arguments don't you? Are you so naive as to think that I was being literal?
I suspect you're feeling more than thinking rationally. I suspect that you have not thought this through.
A little of both.
America was founded on the idea of personal freedom. The only reason attempted suicide is a crime is because of the religious ramifications, something which is unconstitutio
If you are a shaman suicide is imposible because you just keep coming back .This is why they try to take out as many assholes as they can on the way out. So eventually the world becomes a better place for all. Understanding the fundemental properties of time is not easy. Just kiddin
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
First, "protections on sites"? I think you mean "restrictions on sites." Second, you do understand that what you propose is impossible to legislate, right? Both the criteria you list as restrictions are subjective and dependent upon the intent of the site operator. Who is to say what is biased in favor and what is simply informative? It speaks to the mental state of the person who created the site, a so called "thought crime" law. Who is to say if a site's sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques? If they also have one article about what their favorite food is, does that mean they can ignore this law?
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
So how exactly is a site operator supposed to determine if a given user is suicidal? How do you stop suicidal people from going to a site without restricting it to other people? Note, this has to pass constitutional muster such that it cannot allow the government to monitor who reads it because it cannot potentially create a "chilling effect" as per other supreme court ruling on free speech.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I did, but maybe it is my opinion that your real intent was just to inform people how to commit suicide. Maybe you're trying to encourage suicide under the guise of doing the opposite. Since we cannot read your thoughts, who is to say?
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
Yes, that is what everyone who wants to restrict free speech says. No one wants to stop people from talking. They just want to make it illegal to print blasphemy in order to save people's souls. Or maybe they're in favor of free speech, they just want to ban speech about granting "negros" freedom from slavery, since such speech is unnatural and promotes illegal acts like theft of slaves. All other speech is fine.
Being in favor of free speech means it applies to both speech you like and speech you don't like. If you don't support the rights of people to say things you completely disagree with and think are horrible, then you are not in favor of free speech at all.
I believe that such a license ( like a drinking license ) is necessary because suicide is usually the result of psychotic depression -- which was induced by bipolar disorder in this case.
So you propose restricting everyone's rights to prevent the mentally ill from hearing things, and you think this would work?
Firstly, you are pulling a straw man by referring to the mentally ill -- most of the mentally ill are not suicidal. And again, I was not referring to everyone, but only to the suicidal, and only in the very restricted sense of accessing web sites that promote suicide.
You specifically called out the mentally ill by claiming that most people who commit suicide suffer from the mental illness of psychotic depression.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The first thing I thought of was the meme:
"[Backing story and explanation] What should I do?"
"Kill yourself."
Or the popular pic "Remember kids, it's down the road not across the street! Make it count!"
Could it be that a lot of these sites are just knee-jerk meme bleating as opposed to actual, personal endorsement of suicide?
True enough, but killing oneself is rather extreme. Putting the semantics of infinity aside, the battle is fought through all of us all the time, and these particular times are pivotal in deciding which way this beautiful world tips. We came here because we agreed that this was a battle worth winning, so I am speaking of course in terms relative to that shared agreement rather than from any ego-driven need to believe that our mountain is better than somebody else's. I tend to think that it's not so much the territory being fought over as it is the act of struggle itself; Existence or non-existence. Passion is a component of the creative principal, and the idea that nothing is important can be, I think, dangerously misleading.
-FL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I agree with free speech, I think that access to such information should be limited to those who have sufficient information to prove themselves non-suicidal -- exactly like getting a gun license.
So what you're saying is you think your own post should be illegal because you can't be trusted not to say what you just did? What an, umm, interesting concept.
You misunderstand. I meant the protections only on web-sites whose sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques and are biased in favor of using them. I'm not telling anyone to kill themselves.
First, "protections on sites"? I think you mean "restrictions on sites."
True.
Second, you do understand that what you propose is impossible to legislate, right?
Yes.
Both the criteria you list as restrictions are subjective and dependent upon the intent of the site operator. Who is to say what is biased in favor and what is simply informative? It speaks to the mental state of the person who created the site, a so called "thought crime" law. Who is to say if a site's sole purpose is to disseminate suicide techniques? If they also have one article about what their favorite food is, does that mean they can ignore this law?
We already have a law that would fit what you refer to above : It's called the DMCA.
I didn't say banned, I said "controlled", and only in the instance of sites that promote suicide and furthermore only in the instance that the user is suicidal.
So how exactly is a site operator supposed to determine if a given user is suicidal? How do you stop suicidal people from going to a site without restricting it to other people? Note, this has to pass constitutional muster such that it cannot allow the government to monitor who reads it because it cannot potentially create a "chilling effect" as per other supreme court ruling on free speech.
I imagine that such a system could be in place in the far future.
you should start setting an example and stop your own speech on the matter first.
See my comments above.
I did, but maybe it is my opinion that your real intent was just to inform people how to commit suicide. Maybe you're trying to encourage suicide under the guise of doing the opposite. Since we cannot read your thoughts, who is to say?
True again.
I'm also not sure you can claim to be in favor of free speech and then propose a huge restriction on free speech.
I was referring to a very small subset of speech, and any one who is non-suicidal would be free to access it.
Yes, that is what everyone who wants to restrict free speech says. No one wants to stop people from talking. They just want to make it illegal to print blasphemy in order to save people's souls.
Irrelevant. I'm agnostic and as such I don't even believe in blasphemy, nor souls.
Or maybe they're in favor of free speech, they just want to ban speech about granting "negros" freedom from slavery, since such speech is unnatural and promotes illegal acts like theft of slaves. All other speech is fine.
More irrelevancy. I'll restrict from using the term "straw man" as you seem to have a problem with it.
Being in favor of free speech means it applies to both speech you like and speech you don't like.
Yes, I know. Please don't patronize me.
If you don't support the rights of people to say things you completely disagree with and think are horrible, then you are not in favor of free
That's a rather strange argument. Are you saying people in the middle ages would have been smart to kill themselves so as to avoid living in the middle ages?
There have been far better suited arguments made to fit your purpose; "Let's say you're dying from irreversible and enormously painful cancer."
I'm not saying that suicide is wrong. But if you can avoid it, then that's probably better all around. There's no real right answer, but it's worth considering all the factors before deciding, remembering that if you're paying off sour karma, you're going to have to do it one way or another. Suicide just puts it off.
-FL
Try again.
i dont find it interesting. im turkish and english is my second language. i myself have found it interesting to see you to use a 'grammar' card to make some kind of point (god knows to what extent), totally in lieu of what the subject is. what ? if my grammar was bad and i was an american or brit, would that make my arguments much less valid ? what does this irrelevancy you produced suggest to you about how such unsociable debating behaviour relate to the behavioural patterns of an individual ?
.
I just checked your original postings, and I must confess, your grammar usage was indeed similar there as here, so it is certainly possible that it is simply the increased number of sentences you are using which makes it seem as though your ability to communicate has been decaying. My apologies. --There is, however, a link between clarity of mind and clarity of expression and I always point this out to people when they attack; it is a fascinating recurring pattern; a diminished ability to communicate nearly always accompanies faulty thinking and decaying argument. I would not play the 'grammar' card if I did not honestly think it were relevant.
And speaking of which, is your shift key broken? (Don't worry, I will get back to the matter at hand, but this grammar stuff is actually relevant). --Clarity of mind and clarity of communication are linked; capitalization makes it easier for people to understand what you are writing, which suggests that those who do not use capitalization do not place importance on making themselves clearly understood, i.e., they are selfish communicators, and thus selfish thinkers. This may not be the case with you; perhaps you do not realize that clear communication is a form of giving or how capitalization plays a role, but it is nonetheless worth noting. --The whole point of our discussion is centered upon living boldly and outwardly versus retreating inwardly and fearfully. Those who are mostly aligned toward Service-To-Self on the available spectrum tend to be more lazy and less willing to spend energy on others. These people also generally wish that the world were served to them on a platter and pout and complain when it is not. Something to consider.
Okay. Back to the original point. .
is this even an argument ? the world was very wide and people had legs in 19th century in america. how many slaves escaped slavery and made their way into an acceptable life ? whats the ratio of them to the generations that were born and died under slavery ? if you want to see how wide the world is, and what do your legs provide you, try dodging your gas bill this month. or evade taxes this year.
The blacks, I have little doubt, were paying off karma while their masters were going into debt; Both sides had entered into that agreement on the spiritual side in order to accrue experiences which ultimately, over many life-times, teach about love, and leaving early would simply mean having to re-enter the equation on whatever side karma demanded. If there was somebody with good karma in a slave situation, then s/he probably would have appeared to sail through life. I have no doubt whatsoever that such a person really could just get up and walk away unhindered. I see it in our society today; even coming from common beginning points, some people wallow in misery while others fly through life with enormous luck and success.
I don't own a car, so I don't have a gas bill. I deliberately make very little income, so after all the paper work is done, my taxes amount to approximately zero; sometimes the government even ends up owing me money. And yet all my material needs are met, and I live independently in what I consider great comfort and happiness. I can explore life to my satisfaction, and I've moved a couple of times to very different communities, both times finding exactly what I was looking for, (different types of freedom and social intercourse, all very positive). I love my work; I'd do it for nothing and often do, and yet I have nev
That's always possible and I apologize again and recognize my limitations in this regard.
.
.
i wont even comment on how utterly foolish, naive and inexperienced it is to try to establish a link between grammar, punctuation and capitalization and self serving personality.
Why not? I'd be curious to hear your reasoning. I'll say it again; people who deliberately make it difficult to understand what they say, on some level, don't want to be easily understood. How is that not selfish behavior? I make every effort to be clear in my statements, whereas I'm having to work rather hard to decipher your comments. Language background aside, you could quite easily be doing a better job. You can call my objections naive and inexperienced, but I think that's just an attempt to get away from the question by throwing insults, (which I will point out is in itself rather childish!) --But before you accuse me of trying to deflect the debate, let's return to the related subject at hand. .
another extreme naivete. you can justify ANYthing this way. with that level of deterministic belief you dont even need to preach any of the 'bold and fearless and break establishment rules and make your own rules' stuff. dont even try to change your or others' perception through your mental state or whatever. you just need to accept whatever comes your way, because it is a) either you are paying karma, b) or you are going into debt for learning some wonderful learning experience.
You're playing into paradox again. Karma, whether you like it or not, is a function of reality. Do some research on the spiritual side, (contact the spirit realm directly or interview those who have), and you will be able to construct an understanding of how things work, and it will inevitably include the concept of Karmic balance. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not there. I believe you've been trying to tell me the same thing with regard to how the 'rock-solid' deterministic world works. The difference is, the available research into the spiritual realm and quantum science in the physical, happen to agree with me in these two regards, whereas they do much to disprove your chosen view. In any case, as I've explained before, paradox is just a perceived stumbling block. Just because Karma dictates experiences, choice is still the over-riding factor. --Indeed, Karma is just a word to describe the balancing of negative versus positive experiences. That souls engage in these acts is based on their choice; they CHOOSE to come here to experience both sides of these various equations. --Like I said, people often find this concept very upsetting, but that doesn't make it go away.
excuse me, but negative philosophy and leanings do not care about karma, luck or whatever. if such a person tries to walk away, they get whipped and oppressed.
You have no basis from which to declare such a thing except old biases and pre-defined beliefs, and all I can do is encourage you to experiment with reality long enough to find the limitations of those views. I can tell you from experience that you have a grand and unexplored world before you should you but choose to look at it. Your choice.
just go to new york and walk into a back alley. youll see how fast that reality is gonna happen.
Why on earth would I want to walk into a New York back alley? Perhaps I am not making myself clear; to live successfully, you need three things; Awareness, Intent, and Will Power. Here's how it works. .
1. I am Aware that New York back alleys exist in communities where fear and anger have taken firm root.
2. I Intend Not To Be Mugged, so I will use my Awareness to stay away from areas which I know are dodgy.
3. I will use my Will Power to make sure I stick to this plan.
It's really that simple. I'm not sure why you are objecting so fiercely.
Cheers and thank-you for the fun work-out.
Bye!
-FL
It can easily be seen that he/it is arrogant to a degree I would characterize as likely pathological. The number of flaws, the continued misunderstanding or apparent blindness to logical example, a stated purpose which seems to be made up as it goes along according to the needs of the moment, and a generally vile behavior, make me now wonder if the subject was in fact a properly functioning human being at all.
It would take all night to illustrate each and every example of the flawed thinking evidenced here, and all of the next morning to answer the many flawed questions posed. --And to an individual of this nature, that would be energy utterly wasted, --and it is why, I now suspect, the subject was inserted into my life at this critical time. --That is, to waste and diffuse energies which are at the moment sorely needed elsewhere. Interestingly enough, I've had several other heavy-hitter time-wasters horn into my life in the last twenty-four hours. It's been a real bug-shoot!
So Cheers all; I'm going to leave things here, but expect some form of rhetoric from this unity100 character in response to this post. Read whatever is offered at your own risk, but be certain to remember this toxic creep started by promoting mass suicide and continues to do so. Psychopaths are generally well-informed, very intelligent, and very good at sowing confusion and despair. However, over the course of the above dialogue, the endless logical problems are clearly evident to the observant reader. Stay focused and take care. You are loved.
--I've got to go take a shower now. Brrr!
-FL