Surely Homeschooler would disagree. *cough*Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Don't ever expect teachers to make the right decision.
Children committing suicide shouldn't be whittled down to their own personal responsibility. That's ridiculous.That being said... ultimately the person or group of people responsible for the suicides... are the ones who committed suicide. Do I condone the tolerance of bullying? Nope. But people never want to pin personal responsibility where it belongs.
You mean we as a society believe that 13-year-olds have the full capacity to make decisions of life and death? Perhaps we should let them smoke, drink, and vote too.Don't ever expect teachers to make the right decision.
That being said... ultimately the person or group of people responsible for the suicides... are the ones who committed suicide. Do I condone the tolerance of bullying? Nope. But people never want to pin personal responsibility where it belongs.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh geez do you trust them to walk to a bus stop? Let them stay home unsupervised?
The diluting of personal responsibility is part of the problem. A 13 year old is fully capable of NOT killing themselves off. The fact that they are opining on the positive traits of the people who did HUGE damage to their families and communities is disgusting. The selfish little bastards have put their parents, friends and community through hell with their actions and you think it should be excused because they were "only" 13?
I guess a gang of 13 year olds who rapes and murders someone should be let off with a slap on the wrist since they were "only" 13?
WTF happened here? Lewk, do you understand any developmental dynamics of teens and pre-teens? Do you understand any suicidal ideation as a psychological pathology, and that it's most common in adults?
What's disgusting is your comparison of suicidal teens to peer rapists and murderers.
Do you think a 13-year-old who commits a crime should get the equivalent sentence to a 20-year-old? Again, if we think 13-year-olds are fully responsible for their actions, why exactly don't we let them smoke, drink, and vote? You vastly overestimate the ability of a 13-year-old to think rationally, especially when they're being constantly bullied (without punishment) at a place where they have to spend every weekday.
Hope is the denial of reality
Eh? Its not a comparison its taking Loki's argument to its logical conclusion. If you can not blame a 13 year old for their actions then imagine an extreme action where it would unconscionable not to take action against the 13 year old.WTF happened here? Lewk, do you understand any developmental dynamics of teens and pre-teens? Do you understand any suicidal ideation as a psychological pathology, and that it's most common in adults?
What's disgusting is your comparison of suicidal teens to peer rapists and murderers.
Suicide is obviously not as bad as rape and murder however it is an act of selfishness. Essentially the person who commits suicide is saying that their family and friends mean nothing to them. Those who do kill themselves should be vilified and mocked for what they did, not treated as a victim. They may be victims of bullying/assault/harassment but they aren't murder victims. They killed themselves, no one "made" them do it.
I'm fine with giving out the same punishment to a 13 year old murderer.
So death penalty? How about a 10-year-old? 7?
Hope is the denial of reality
In other words, you have no idea how pre-teens and teens develop. And you have no clue why people with suicidal ideations, or those who attempt (or commit) suicide should never be vilified or mocked.
Wow, I have very little positive thoughts about suicide, yet I blinked when reading Lewkowski's evaluation of what suicide means. I think death is never the right way out, but it's quite another thing seeing suicide as a cheap tool to punish people close to you.
Congratulations America
Seven year-olds who steal toothpaste absolutely should be put to death, yeah.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
This thread makes me pity Lewk's kid
He has a kid right?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It remains to be seen whether we'll have to "vilify and mock" said kid if they're not as keen on Jesus as daddy dearest...
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Maybe she'll go slutty, like a lot of gals do when raised by strict or fundie-ish religious parents.
Certainly better than the "sex is a sin" approach that results in so many of them getting knocked up in high school.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Mocked... maybe not so much. Vilified? Absolutely. Suicide should have stigma attached to it.
This would be an interesting way for things to turn out for a kid named Luke.Maybe she'll go slutty, like a lot of gals do when raised by strict or fundie-ish religious parents.
Why? Well not why overall, but why according to your reasons. It seems equally selfish for everyone else (friends and family) to expect someone to keep themselves alive who, from that person's perspective, is leading an existence where death is preferable to life, simply so that they don't feel remorse. To keep this discussion fairly short, from my perspective, it looks like the only ammunition you're going to have lined up for why suicide is something to be vilified, are mainly going to be appeals to your interpretation of the Christian religion, and a masochistic personal opinion centered around disproportionately punishing people that violate your moral code. To go even further, most rational minded people would argue about the finality of a decision like suicide, and not that it might make some people very sad.
. . .
And why might that be? You need to actually read that book you claim is your Holy Text, because it doesn't say what you [seem to] think it says about suicide.
Probably just that second one, since the Bible doesn't have a whole lot to say on the subject of ending one's life, and what it does have to say is basically factual reporting rather than moral judgement.
Speaking of, Lewk, were you planning to get to back to us on why God hates fags, or were you just planning on letting that go, and hoping that no one notices a couple of heathens having more Biblical knowledge than you? Either way's fine, I'm just hoping you'd be willing to help me out and decide which thing I'm going to get a mild chuckle out of.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the bible is clear about homosexuality.
1. Suicide hurts those around you. Hurting others for selfish "gain" (in the suicide person's mine the end to suffering is their gain) is... wrong. If I wanted to rob a store to gain the benefit of money its a similar situation. I'm making others suffer in order for some type of gain. Even if your not Christian this type of selfish behavior is considered immoral by other religions and anyone who believes in any sort of moral code or system.
2. Suicide is typically a response to short term pain. These teenagers just had to get on with their lives, once high school is over things would be different for them.
3. Yes... I believe suicide is sinful based on my faith. Its not the only reason I think it should be vilified however. You thinking that poor people shouldn't starve to death in the street based on your moral belief is no different than my moral belief that suicide is bad. That being said I don't support having laws to jail people who try to commit suicide. I'm opposed to government interference. Personally though I think its wrong and I think people should openly claim it is wrong and create a stigma against that type of activity.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're a pedophile and the anti-Christ.
See, I can make flagrantly false statements too. How about you back up your bullshit about the Bible, instead of vanishing into thin fucking air any time anyone who's actually read the Bible states what's actually in it?
There's even a relatively recent thread on this very fucking topic that you bailed on (as usual) once other people, heathens to your belief, managed to display more Biblical knowledge in a few posts than you have in your entire posting history.
And on what Biblical passage do you base that belief? I'll give a you a free hint, and it's that Judas being damned to hell probably had less to do with how he ended his life and more to do with that thing where he betrayed Jesus to his executioners for a handful of coins.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
So if hurting others for selfish gain is immoral, isn't keeping someone alive who feels life is unbearable, so that you don't have to feel sad about their passing, hurting this person (you're causing them to experience suffering), for your own selfish gain (not wanting to feel sad about them dying, and not having them around)? You're going to have to define selfishness better here, as well as fine tune what you mean.
Alan Turing killed himself because of continual lifelong persecution for his homosexuality. That, and besides teasing, we also have people who want to commit suicide because of terminal illnesses, where the pain isn't short term.2. Suicide is typically a response to short term pain. These teenagers just had to get on with their lives, once high school is over things would be different for them.
There is a major difference. Where-as in the case of poor people dying in the street of starvation I look at the moral failing and responsibility across the spectrum from society itself to the person who is affected. In your interpretation of things, all failing is solely on the person suffering or the person committing the action. Which is why everyone is having this discussion with you. If the responsibility or moral failing was solely on the child committing suicide in response to bullying, then they would still have committed suicide absent bullying. If they would not have, then the bullies are in part responsible. This would be like blaming a flood victim for drowning. The water isn't at fault at all, they only had to swim harder and longer and they'd still be alive.3. Yes... I believe suicide is sinful based on my faith. Its not the only reason I think it should be vilified however. You thinking that poor people shouldn't starve to death in the street based on your moral belief is no different than my moral belief that suicide is bad.
. . .
1. Ultimately the choice is still the suicidal persons. They will need to decide if they take the high road and continue life and not hurt other people. As I mentioned before I don't believe society should incarcerate people who are suicidal. I am not "forcing" anyone to stay alive.So if hurting others for selfish gain is immoral, isn't keeping someone alive who feels life is unbearable, so that you don't have to feel sad about their passing, hurting this person (you're causing them to experience suffering), for your own selfish gain (not wanting to feel sad about them dying, and not having them around)? You're going to have to define selfishness better here, as well as fine tune what you mean.
Alan Turing killed himself because of continual lifelong persecution for his homosexuality. That, and besides teasing, we also have people who want to commit suicide because of terminal illnesses, where the pain isn't short term.
There is a major difference. Where-as in the case of poor people dying in the street of starvation I look at the moral failing and responsibility across the spectrum from society itself to the person who is affected. In your interpretation of things, all failing is solely on the person suffering or the person committing the action. Which is why everyone is having this discussion with you. If the responsibility or moral failing was solely on the child committing suicide in response to bullying, then they would still have committed suicide absent bullying. If they would not have, then the bullies are in part responsible. This would be like blaming a flood victim for drowning. The water isn't at fault at all, they only had to swim harder and longer and they'd still be alive.
2. No one was terminally ill in this situation. I find terminally ill suicides to be less atrocious, still wrong but on a different scale. Again... I don't want the state to prevent people from making that choice. Do you?
3. I dislike the "if they weren't bullied would they have still committed suicide" reasoning. Millions and millions of kids are bullied everyday. Do they kill themselves? No they don't only a tiny minuscule fraction do so. On a similar theme if you decide to break up with your girlfriend and your girlfriend kills herself should you be blamed for the suicide? I mean after all if you hadn't broken up would she have still killed herself?
Ultimately too often our culture wants to give people a free pass. If someone kills themselves it was someone else's fault. If someone is a criminal it was because society shaped them. If someone loses their job its never their fault, its the economy. If someone fails to pass a test its because they aren't a good test taker. If someone is addicted its because addiction is a "disease."
Always its an excuse after excuse after excuse. People make their choices. They are responsible for the consequences of those choices. We shouldn't celebrate, condone or give suicide folks a pass. There is and should continue to be a stigma attached to it. I find it disgusting that the article paints these selfish people in a positive light.
FFS, robbing a store isn't the same thing at all. The 'selfish benefits' aren't even comparable. Especially not for teenagers with an undeveloped pre-frontal cortex, a nervous system being flooded with adolescent hormones, social/peer pressures that can overwhelm their coping skills....maybe mixed in with genetic predispositions to brain chemical imbalances. Things like ADD, OCD, anxiety, depression, bi-polar disorders, or early schizoid-affect can be devastating to a teenager. This all impacts individual decision-making.
Religious moralizing can often make it worse. Punishing a teenager for acting on sinful sexual thoughts outside of hetero-sexual marriage (because the Bible "says so"), or chastising a toddler for stealing a pack of gum by calling them a selfish sinner thief, and setting up Heaven-or-Hell / Love-or-Hate scenarios can really fuck up a perfectly normal kid.
Wrong. Suicidal people aren't necessarily acting on a freee choice, but can be held captive by underlying disorders and problems. No wonder you don't understand why suicidal people are incarcerated temporarily and against their "Will", or can't see mental illness as potentially terminal as cancer.
You don't have to call suicide "immoral" or "selfish" in order to value Life. You don't have to suggest everyone with suicidal thoughts is trying to blame others, find a "free pass" or excuse, condoning or celebrating death. And you certainly don't need to preach about stigmas. People like you are why it's often hard to convince people to call a suicide hot line or reach out for help. You're already convinced they should simply take the high road, buck it up, pull themselves up, and just keep living. Right?
LEWK
The comparison between bullying and breaking up is an interesting onein both cases one party may in fact be the proximal cause of the other party's suicide. The question isn't one of causation but rather one of accountability and punishment. For various reasons we don't hold people accountable for--and punish them--for breaking up with a person who then commits suicide, eg. because it's very difficult to live with a depressed and suicidal person (who very often engages in their own form bullying/emotional blackmail), or because withholding help isn't the same as doing violence. Do you really believe that not helping a person is the same as hurting that person? In no other discussion on this forum have you claimed to hold such a position, IIRC.
I don't think this bit from your post actually says what you want it to say:
This does not answer the question of "would they have done it if they hadn't been bullied".Millions and millions of kids are bullied everyday. Do they kill themselves? No they don't only a tiny minuscule fraction do so.
You're so offended by the (in your view) excessive liberal emphasis on factors outside the individual's control that you've adopted an even more ridiculous approach that completely ignores those external influences. That is silly. Are you going to willingly blinker yourself out of indignation?? Be sensible ffs. You will in fact be partially responsible for how your kid turns out, just as someone is partially responsible for you being the way you are today. I shan't speculate as to whom, but that person seems to have done a real number on you, and his responsibility is probably great. No matter what he thought or may have led you to believe, he was responsible for the consequences of his actions/inactions (and someone else was no doubt crucial to how he turned out), and so shall you be for the consequences of yours, eg. on how your kid turns out. Try to deal with that notion rather than running away from it or burying it in anger
Responsibility isn't all or nothing, except in insurance and other specialized contexts that may force a binary guilty/innocent outcome. Can you deal with a notion of responsibility that isn't all-or-nothing? Maybe this will help: it's like when you go out to dinner with your friends and you all order different things and everyone is responsible for a fraction of the check.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
LEWK
I am curious; your interpretation of the situation allows for two views on suicide "survivors" (it seems to me), and I wonder which you'd subscribe to. On this forum, at least I and I think Bitter are people who genuinely tried to off ourselves in the past, but for whatever reason failed. Today, we're at least moderately successful people in our endeavors, and Bitter's in what I hear a good relationship to boot. Now, my question is:
Are our successes diminished due to our moral failing in the past, or
should we be held as exemplary to the children so selfishly choosing to die?
Is our transgression a taint so large in our history that we are forever painted black, do only those people who merely considered suicide fit the mold of the role-model? What weight does our moral failing hold, in your perspective, on us today? After all, the intent to be selfish was genuinely there.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
So, first, I have a question. If suicide is wrong because it harms the people who care about the guy who just offed himself, what about people who have no friends or family? Is suicide OK for them?
And if suicide is wrong because it harms those who care about someone, what about one of those people everyone hates? By your... let's call it logic... wouldn't it be immoral for this person to continue living, making self-termination the moral choice?
Just doing that oh so Christian thing where you judge and condemn those you don't understand. Judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. Oh right, you might not recognize those quotes given that you don't seem to have read the book that contains them, but they're both things Jesus said.
Likewise, only a tiny fraction of people die from being kicked, so if I were to kick you in the throat, and kill you by crushing your larynx, that would be your fault, for not living through it like the millions of other people who are survivors of being kicked?
What's really disgusting here is your need to assign blame and condemn people for no reason whatsoever. What's it to you if some kid a couple thousand miles away kills himself? Or doesn't? Are you so desperate for someone to pass judgement on that you need to pick on a bunch of people who were so miserable they choose to kill themselves rather than live another day? That's just low. Seriously, if you're that desperate to pass judgement on someone, at least be fucking man about it and pick on someone your own size. There's always me to try to pick on, for example...
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
This doesn't answer my question at all, and it looks like you're trying to segue into a topic no one, at least not myself, has brought up to avoid discussing or answering it. I'm assuming this because of some No True Scotsman like fallacy, that you at least recognize you're engaging in, where it can't be selfish if someone wants another person to continue living, because keeping/wanting someone alive is in your opinion a good action, and selfish actions can only be bad (if someone knows a better term for the logical fallacy described here, let me know).
Again, you're going off on a tangent, for reasons I can only assume are related to my above explanation. Regardless, you're still stating that its okay for one person to expect another to experience subjective pain on the level where death is preferable to life, so that person doesn't have to experience loss/remorse/sadness, etc. How is this not selfish?2. No one was terminally ill in this situation. I find terminally ill suicides to be less atrocious, still wrong but on a different scale. Again... I don't want the state to prevent people from making that choice. Do you?
Before replying to the rest of the post, I feel its necessary to address a concern here.
It seems as if your moral belief system seeps into even how you interpret words. Since your moral belief system itself appears rather binary, words themselves have taken on moral binary meaning instead of their actual meaning. They either imply good or bad things, with some binary modification, or complete nullification applied when describing other things. For instance, if someone proposes a change in company policy that in the future results in the company increasing their profit, they are responsible (good) in your opinion. If another person robs a bank, they are responsible (bad) for the theft. However if someone commits an action that in the future results in another person committing suicide they are not responsible at all. This nullification seems to have occurred because you can't class it as a good or bad action. This little tangent of mine mentioned a concern and this was a small part of it. The main part of it however, is that how you seem to interpret language has resulted in you engaging in conversations, discussions, etc. with people, and interpreting what they mean as if we, the rest of us on this forum, and any "Liberals" you point out to us in the rest of the world, are operating and thinking using the same language and meanings you are. The way in which you are not seeing what we and others are talking about, or how crazy you think we are, is much like how a colorblind person would think a person who could see colors was if they had no idea that other people did see colors. We're both discussing the same topic, you've just excluded yourself from seeing a huge portion of it because of how you've chosen to view it.
Note to everyone else: I understand the analogy fails at the part where a person doesn't choose to be colorblind or have color vision. I am not very good at word based analogies. Feel free to supply a better one if you find it.
I feel I addressed this above, and Minx himself alluded to it. A person can still be responsible for an act, but that doesn't mean that they have to be held accountable, or culpable. The rest of us are perfectly capable of differentiating the fact that if I broke up with my girlfriend and she killed herself, while my actions would be responsible for what she did, we would in part be looking at responsibility on the scale of cause and effect, not solely a moral judgement of my actions. They would still be perfectly capable of gauging responsibility on a moral scale while keeping the other in mind.3. I dislike the "if they weren't bullied would they have still committed suicide" reasoning. Millions and millions of kids are bullied everyday. Do they kill themselves? No they don't only a tiny minuscule fraction do so. On a similar theme if you decide to break up with your girlfriend and your girlfriend kills herself should you be blamed for the suicide? I mean after all if you hadn't broken up would she have still killed herself?
Again, going back to the concern I brought up. Lets say instead of robbing a bank, or committing suicide, it was someone boiling a pot of water. A person may be responsible for boiling water, but so is the stove, the heat that the stove emits, the power that fuels the stove, the pot itself, etc. Changing the variables would affect how the water is boiled, and if it boils at all. The reason we look at these things isn't to cast blame, but to determine how things could have been different, and if we wanted them to turn out differently, how we should change them in the future. If I was unable to boil water because the stove is broken, then perhaps I should fix the stove. If you don't want people to commit suicide perhaps you should look at both what is motivating them to do so externally, for instance bullying, and what is motivating them internally (like not finding suicide morally reprehensible). This would, at the very least, be a first step at seeing the world in a broader, more nuanced light.Ultimately too often our culture wants to give people a free pass. If someone kills themselves it was someone else's fault. If someone is a criminal it was because society shaped them. If someone loses their job its never their fault, its the economy. If someone fails to pass a test its because they aren't a good test taker. If someone is addicted its because addiction is a "disease."
Also I'm personally a little taken aback by the whole losing a job thing. My former employer specifically mentioned that it wasn't anything I had done that was going to result in my being let go, it was just that I was one of the last people to be employed there, and that they would no longer be able to afford to pay me. I'm uncertain how this translates into my being at fault for the loss of my job in your worldview. Perhaps I could have worked even harder and got my bachelors degree in 3 years instead of 3.5, and gotten the job a bit earlier, but that still means someone else would have been let go for the same reasons I was. It just wouldn't have been me.
Yet again, nuance. They aren't always excuses, but sometimes explanations. People do make their own choices, but outside forces do help to determine what choices they want to make or can make.Always its an excuse after excuse after excuse. People make their choices. They are responsible for the consequences of those choices. We shouldn't celebrate, condone or give suicide folks a pass. There is and should continue to be a stigma attached to it. I find it disgusting that the article paints these selfish people in a positive light.
. . .
Cain - pointing out sinful behavior has never been against the good book. The idea of quoting "judge not lest ye be judged" so completely out of context is exactly why its impossible to debate biblical passages with you.
Wow you wrote a book... =/
I'll response to some of this.
1. I don't know how much plainer I can make it. I'm not for *forcing* people to stay alive. Sometimes making the moral choice does involve additional suffering. That doesn't give people an "out" and makes their decision any less immoral.
2. Moral's are binary. There is a right and a wrong. There are different levels of right and wrong but every action is still either right or wrong. "Grey area" only comes in when trying to figure out what is the right action. And some moral quandaries are different and our flawed human perspective may mean we get it wrong however ultimately there is still only right and wrong. (Or completely non-moral decisions like eating an apple or a peach).
3. So in the example of your girlfriend I still don't see you are responsible even in the cause/effect situation. Well I guess on the level of "You choose to drive today and that made the person late because of one more car on the road and then they had an accident so you are not responsible for driving that day." Yes in the most basic sense of the word you could be considered "responsible" however not in any meaningful way. Ditto here. The person who kills themselves is the person who takes 100% of the responsibility in the practical sense.
4. I'm not suggesting that EVERYONE or even MOST (though it could be) people lose their job due to their actions. I'm suggesting that you and the culture today never even think of looking at the individual and seeing if they could have done something differently. I don't know you so I have no idea if that is the case or not but right now if someone loses their job the immediate thinking is "oh its the economy," and not "well maybe he showed up late..." Again I'm not suggesting we should immediately jump to the conclusion they did something wrong and that is why they are out of work but its equally inane to suggest that someone is out of job and immediately assume that it was due to no fault of their own. It was just an example not directed at you.
In case you missed it, he was referring to your judgement rather than to your polite information campaign
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
