suicide methodes
Pages
| Author | Topic: suicide methodes |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 04:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:You're preachin' to the choir, TM. I'm not Djur. I make my own claims. -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 05:36
Profile
Homepage
I was preaching to Djur in the second part of my post, in case you didn't get that. Goddammit! It was early in the morning then! _files/tongue.gif) -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 366
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 08:21
Profile
I think I've slept with enough people to take part in a controlled study, and the best sex of my life was with a complete stranger, who I then went on to shag for 6 months before we even had a conversation. Now I've been "with" him for 2 years, we're really good friends and the sex is exactly the same. Not better, not worse. -------------------- I say never be complete. I say stop being perfect. I say let's evolve. Let the chips fall where they may. Posts: 1277 | Registered: Sunday, December 9 2001 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 3520
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 08:52
Profile
An amusing (for the sadistic among us) true story about suicide. thier was this man who had had the most miserable life you could emagin, deaths dept and so forth... anyway he decided to kill himself 'good and proper', he tied a noose to a tree overhanging a cliff... he then drank a gallon of bleach... and then he pulled out a pistol and put it too his head... so he jamp of the cliff neck in noose, his hand jerked so he shot the rope letting him fall, in mid air the velocity made him throw up all the bleach, and the tide was in so he survived the landing... he was taken to hostpital after deciding to live life after all... and then died of hypothermia from the water... or well as they say... **** happens _files/smile.gif) -------------------- E=MC2 =Meaning of reletivity =meaning of life = Coke and Curry. Posts: 23 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 11:54
Profile
On the mercy killing subject, I agree entirely with Ironweed. I would never, ever agree to assist anyone with their suicide. My arguments for this are not moral or religious ones, but are the result of some (over)abstract thinking. Now starts the long-winded lecture (Apologies in advance). There are several rights which we as humans have, or ought to have. The most important of these rights, in my opinion, is the right to live. In fact, I believe in the rights of all organisms to live, but I'll leave my animal rights rhetoric and vegetarianism out of this. When one kills another human being, one has weakened the quintessential right of all humans to live. It does not matter if the killing is on purpose or an accident. It does not matter if the person deserves to die. It does not matter if it is in self defense. It does not matter if the dead person wished to die. Whenever a human being takes the life of another human being, no matter the circumstances, the value of human life is lowered, ever so slightly. The principle of the sanctity of human life crumbles, little by little. Many killings are unavoidable. Accidents happen and will always happen. Killing in self defense is excusable. Homicides are terrible occurrences, but are often unpreventable. Suicides can sometimes only be prevented by the suicidal individuals themselves. Vigilante killings are very undesirable, but are occasionally helpful in order to take care of murderers before they can kill many more times. However, whenever possible we should keep the aforementioned principle in mind. Capital punishment is one instance in which there are alternatives available that will not hurt the principle. Euthanasia is another such instance. Though it may seem cruel to say so, those who want others to kill them, for whatever reason, must never be helped. This applies to those unsatisfied with life, those who have become vegetables and had wished to be killed once they reached such a state, and all others as well. In the first assistance, the person asked by the other to kill him/her should always attempt to convince the other to the best of their abilities to seek out medical help for his/her problems. In the second instance, the person should only be killed if recovery is impossible and death is an unavoidable eventuality. Well, that is my theory, and a very rough, unfinished, and faulty one it is. I would request all of you to give me your honest opinions on this. If you all consider me insane, I at least want to know about it _files/biggrin.gif) -------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 12:21
Profile
Homepage
You disagree with euthenasia? You disagree with a terminally ill person in such pain that living itself is NOT WORTH the physical torture they go through on a daily basis wanting to end their miserable, tortured existence? I'd like to think most people wouldn't have the gall to cry to a person from some self-righteous mountain that their life isn't bad enough, but that's what your arguments boil down to- you're saying that, for some abstract and distanced reason, someone cannot morally relieve themselves of extreme pain because the abstract reasons distanced from man take priority over the real, physical, extreme suffering of human beings. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 12:29
Profile
I admit I am talking in the abstract, but my point is that there is a greater good which is more important that individual suffering. While euthanasia may relieve the pain of the individual, the principle of the value of human life is incontrovertibly damaged as a result. This is not to say that if I personally was in such a situation, I would be able to avoid taking the easy way out. It's just saying that it would be the right thing to do. -------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 12:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:I just said that the emotions aren't necessarily for the person you're having sex with. There are non-interpersonal emotions, you know. I'm saying that sex is performed to satisfy an emotional imperative, like all actions. Traci Lords was a porn star back in the day. One of the most famous, being underaged for the majority of her career. She once said that sex to her was an expression of power. The term she used, I believe, was "sexual terrorist." She was having sex with people she'd never met before, but it was still an expression of emotion. Anyone who claims that they act without emotional imperative is insane or lying. Look at TM. Doesn't he seem rather angry for someone who claims he's eliminating emotion from his life? [ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:48: Message edited by: Kill Yourself ] Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 12:51
Profile
Homepage
Sorry, but I disagree. Forcing someone to endure suffering for the greater good is both sadistic and demeaning. It's far better to let someone choose to end their life with dignity than to force them to become a vegetable before they can die. —Alorael, who heard a bit more to the overdone suicide story. The man also set himself on fire, but the fire of course went out when he fell in the water. That was a Darwin Award, and its accuracy seems highly suspect. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 3417
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 12:55
Profile
Homepage
Rent "Better off Dead" with John Cusack. I think it pretty much covers all the clever options for suicide, and in several languages to boot. edit(sp) [ Friday, October 17, 2003 19:13: Message edited by: mortification8 ] -------------------- This space intentionally left blank. Posts: 70 | Registered: Monday, September 1 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 13:03
Profile
You should consider the opposite consequence as well. Once it happens that the principle of the sanctity of human life is finally damaged too extensively to remain, horrifying and unforeseen eventualities could emerge, eventualities which would far surpass the sufferings of individuals in fear and pain. With the principle laid to ruins, human life will no longer even retain a vestige of importance. The unpredictable forces of evil that would sweep through the world as a result need not be described. And I am convinced that if we as humans continue forward on the path that we are traveling, this is the only destination we shall reach. -------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 13:21
Profile
Homepage
Djur- Personal insults aren't necessary. I know this may be a foreign concept and whatnot, but pointing out my flaws as a flaw of my ideas is like discrediting liberalism because Bill got fellatio in office. And besides, I've stated multiple times that anger gets the best of me. I don't care what people do on their own time, but when they interrupt what I'm trying to get done, they're less than worthless to me, and at that point I seek to rectify the situation. If anything, my anger is a lack of foresight. And it's getting better- normally, your obviously illogical and poorly thought through insults would have me spewing a blue streak on these here boards. As for the rest of your post? I have no friggin' clue what the hell I just read. I'm sure you're trying to get some sort of logical point across, I just don't get it. Repeat yourself. ---- Stughalf- I'm afraid you're not adressing my points. What makes your argument that some abstract notion is violated if a person is euthenized. What makes my (and Alorael's) argument is that actual people are being violated. In my eyes, the most real, pressing and human concern is that someone is in pain. Allowing euthenasia adresses this. Forbidding it does not. An argument takes place in an abstraction (Djur, take note of this). Its strength, however, is how it applies to real people. You have failed to prove how your position does such. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 13:47
Profile
Homepage
Um, TM, all I said is that you seem rather angry. That isn't a personal attack, it's an observation. If you want to bring irrationality into the fray, how about the fact that you still have me blocked for performing my duty at the Arena? [ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 13:48: Message edited by: Djur ] Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 13:52
Profile
Homepage
Stughalf, if one has a right to life, then surely the definition of a right entails the ability to do with that right as one pleases, including waiving that right if one wants? Think of the example of a right to medical care; if one is ill, one is free to seek many types of medical care ("conventional" or "alternative"), or to not seek medical attention at all if one wishes. So why should people not be free also to live as they choose, including to not live at all? -------------------- I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 105 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons. -- Sir Arthur Eddington Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 14:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:When the sanctity of human life is damaged too extensively to be enjoyed, it is simple cruelty to force someone to continue to live. An ambiguous "greater good" should never take precedence over real suffering. To me, that cheapens human life and denies individual choice. quote:They're certainly unforeseen and unpredicted by me. I'm afraid I would like you to describe the result, since I don't see it. [Edit: The gender neutrality of "they" can only be stretched so far before one must give in to proper grammar.] —Alorael, who certainly doesn't think that euthanasia should ever be forced upon anyone. But if someone chooses death over discomfort, why should anyone else have the right to overrule the decision? One is not qualified to judge the difficulty of living with a painful, debilitating, terminal condition until one has lived with such a condition oneself. [ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 14:14: Message edited by: Alorael ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 14:13
Profile
Homepage
God. You mindlessly charge into the same argument I made in my last post, and then you fail to clarify your side of the debate. I'd like to think you could do better than this. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 14:25
Profile
Homepage
Edit: This refers to Thuryl's post. That of course is a question of whether the 'right' also contains the 'duty', which I find absurd, since I agree that a right is something you are free in the usage of. The problem I have with euthanasia is not, strictly speaking, an ethical or a spiritual one, since I'd say comitting suicide is among the basic rights of a person. The problem of legal euthanasia, especially for terminally sick and elderly people, is rather a social one. Even though officially the choice would remain the patient's, families might subtly press their elderly relatives to opt for it when they would rather not, which is of course a perversion of the idea of 'free choice'. There is no real way to rule this pressure out, so legalizing 'professional' euthanasia (ie. by doctors) is not a decision that should be rushed into, imo. [ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 14:41: Message edited by: Arancaytar ] -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2628
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 14:38
Profile
Homepage
Stughalf, I think in these right-to-life arguments (as in any other arguments) there is no black and white. There will always be shades of grey. I personally support euthanasia for terminally ill patients who have reached the end stages of their illness, if they are of sound mind (and not depressed) when they make the choice. I watched my grandparents die. From diagnosis to death was about 15 years for my grandfather and about 6 months for my grandmother. Both of them retained a strong will to live until the last few weeks. Once they reached the end stages of their illnesses they were in constant pain (in spite of being medicated into near insensibility). Both knew they had terminal illnesses, and that they were not going to recover. Euthanasia is illegal where I live. I watched these people I loved die in intense agony because of a principle about the 'sanctity of life'. About 36 hours before his death in hospital, my grandfather asked the ward doctor for assistance to die. The doctor refused to help him. My grandfather spent the next 36 hours in extreme pain. What was the point in that extra 36 hours of life? What good did it serve? Where's the sanctity in suffering? Having said I support euthanasia, I think any euthanasia laws would need plenty of safeguards against things like family pressure and pressure from the state (with an overburdened welfare/health system). -------------------- We meet and part now over all the world; we, the lost company, take hands together in the night, forget the night in our brief happiness, silently. -- Judith Wright My website Posts: 512 | Registered: Wednesday, February 12 2003 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 14:47
Profile
Homepage
Exactly: The problem is of distinguishing between euthanasia to relieve the patient of pain, and euthanasia to unburden social security, welfare and family. The first is moral imo, while the second is absolutely unethical. -------------------- "And all should cry, Beware, Beware! His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge --- "It is as if everyone had lost their sense Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey. --- Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 14:54
Profile
Well. I saw a friend die of a brain tumor. Morphine didn't help any more. I have no words to express the agony I witnessed before I found a doctor who was willing to inject an overdose. It was the least I could do. I loved that person, but would ask the same even for my worst enemy, having seen what I saw. -------------------- Polaris Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Babelicious
Member # 3149
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 16:24
Profile
Homepage
Let me make this clearer for you. Absence of emotion has a name. It's called sociopathy. EDIT: I don't need to debate with TM. He has an ax to grind. [ Wednesday, October 15, 2003 16:27: Message edited by: Djur ] Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 16:27
Profile
Well, I'm glad that all of you have given me your honest opinions. I appreciate them all, even if I don't agree with them all. But all of your statements have served to help me refine my arguments, and eliminate certain errors I have committed in my previous posts. My writings on this subject so far have been just abstract musings, with no great quantity of reason or reality to them. I will admit that I am addicted to black and white thinking, and that this is not the optimal mode of thought. I live and think by hard and fast principles, for better or worse. For whatever reason, making exceptions to rules or considering issues by individual situations is profoundly unsatisfactory for me. As such, I enjoy talking in the abstract, about a world that does not and cannot exist, about matters of simple cause and effect. As a result, when I state my views on a subject, it is always necessary for me to temper them with healthy doses of reality. Unfortunately, occasionally in my exuberance I forget to do so, which accounts for my last posting, which I am quite willing to admit was over the top. But to address some of your points... I do not support an actual, real-life law banning euthanasia. My opinions on the subject do not include "forcing" suffering people to live through hours of pain until they can die naturally. If you read my first post on the subject, you will see that I expressly stated that if someone is terminally ill and recovery is impossible, that person should indeed be euthanized. I simply do not support assisted suicide or euthanasia when the situation can possibly be resolved or improved by other means. In fact, I do indeed believe in choice in the issue. The patient should have the right to choose between a natural death and euthanasia. Rather than enforcing laws to ban euthanasia, I believe in convincing individuals in these positions to choose to die naturally. A person should never be forced either way. In terms of the principle of the sanctity of human life, that is something that I believe in very strongly. In the real world however, that principle is already on its last legs. A few euthanasias admittedly can do little more to weaken a principle that has already nearly been smashed to bits by the sheer number of lives taken in the many worthless conflicts our world endured last century and continues to endure. But euthanasia does indeed have an effect on the principle, though this effect is largely symbolic. My point is not to make it impossible or illegal for the terminally ill to be euthanized. My sole purpose with these posts is to convey the danger involved in making such decisions based solely on one's individual pain and suffering. No one wants to see a world where a human life is worth no more than the ground he walks on. -------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 16:34
Profile
Homepage
Human life is worth more than everything except free will. -------------------- In a word, gay. --Bob the Impaler Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 17:03
Profile
Homepage
I'm immensely disappointed in Djur. I'm also not particularily surprised- if someone doesn't get your point, you might as well toss illogical comments about their failure and shy away from actually trying to express your beliefs. If any of you would like to adopt his point for him, feel free to do so. I'm still interested in understanding it, which is a trait that does not fit me at the moment. quote:So essentially, you're saying: We will always know if a person "can possibly be resolved or improved by other means". This is wrong and an attack on the solvency of your proposal because of borderline cases- someone will have to make the decision at some point, and that person may not always be right, subjecting a person to what you said you believe as unnecessary pain. (I skipped your middle paragraph, because you're essentially repeating yourself, and I couldn't really derive any clear points in it.) quote:No one wants to see a world where civil rights are worth no more than the ground their bearers walk upon. If you want to live in a world where your safety is given more priority than your ability to CHOOSE your own safety, that's tossing civil rights out of the window. You're saying that essentially, as long as you can do the RIGHT choice (and might I add, by adopting this term, your argument crumbles by its imperceptible subjectivity), you must do that choice. But seeing as you used this paragraph to backstep quickly into a "greater scheme" argument (and essentially saying you don't care about euthenasia by saying it has no real impact at this point), I'll adress that. Your main point of what I could gather is that life should be respected- I agree, but you neglected to appreciate choice. I'm against the death penalty, war, non-pacifism and some such, but if I'm not allowed to do as I please within the boundaries of not harming others, then hand me the dagger and let me end it with my own hands as a last request. In summation, I disagree with your euthenasia arguments on principle and by its lack of solvency, but I agree with your life being important statement (which really aught to have been said sooner), although I place a far greater emphasis on choice. -------------------- We're all amazed but not amused By all the things that you said you'd do. You're much concerned but not involved by Decisions that are made by you But we are sick and tired of hearing your song, Telling us how you are going to change right from wrong, 'Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothin'. Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Wednesday, October 15 2003 17:16
Profile
You introduce a very valid point here, TM. There are indeed instances in which it is uncertain whether a patient will recover or not. In such cases, I would support allowing the individual to opt for euthanasia, in order to prevent the chance that an individual could go through months of suffering only to receive a death sentence from a doctor after it all. And if you read my last post more closely, you'll see that I am a supporter of choice. However, I am also a very strong supporter of coercion _files/wink.gif) .-------------------- "Let a man find himself, in distinction from others, on top of two wheels with a chain- at least in a poor country like Russia- and his vanity begins to swell out like his tires. In America it takes an automobile to produce this effect."- Leon Trotsky Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |