I will respond of course, and will try and defend my points without bringing up any new argument or content which would require a response, and because this isn't much of an essay like the last one I won't take the effort organize it as well as I did so sorry if it seems a bit muddled
I think at some point there was a fundamental disagreement over what this discussion was, I was initially confused when you said:
as well as a slew of diversionary tactics
Since... it was a debate, and I was simply stating my points. I did this because you started this thread with
particular perspective devoted to logic and reason.
And hoped I would
engage in logical, non-combative debate.
And reading more you said
You also expanded the discussion from freedom to make other points you wanted, which to me says it is about an agenda, not the conversation I invited you to have.
Which was never specified to me in you introduction so I assumed was irrelevant. You said the 2nd and 3rd phrases I quoted, which led me to believe our conversation was not exclusive to "liberation" which in itself is a rather useless term since the conversation has in my opinion way hyperbolized the importance of "liberation". And I'm sure you noticed I hardly if ever used the word, because it's not helpful as a deciding factor in suicide. I only artificially isolated it for the purpose of pure reason (and I should emphasize, considerably weaker reason compared to other arguments), and when I enter a thread called "A Stoic Defense Against Pro-Life Rhetoric" I was not expecting this defense to, for some reason, nullify any rhetoric against it other than an appeal to liberty.
I also want to mention that your example, which is specifically designed against an appeal to liberty, gives no solution for liberty. I am incapable of providing a reason why liberty is a useful or productive term for those examples, so I analyse the differences between a modern average suicide and your analogies. I hope you understand, I simply cannot appeal to liberty in an example you specifically engineer for the purpose of voiding any sort of liberty since all available conclusions result in loss of freedom. Because of that, the only productive way to continue the conversation is to ask "what is different between this and a modern average suicide" and logicize from there, which obviously will not involve defending a term impossible to defend in the given circumstances.
After typing this I tried to read it as close as I can and this does, to an extent, indicate limiting the conversation to "liberation" alone
I was following the thread "Death to Liberate" and wanted to engage with you in the discussion.
I must of overlooked this when I saw the bold text and read your statement referring to logic and courtesy.
Even then though, despite you having good intentions and apparent interest in appeals to liberty alone, and respectfully, I find this unfair. It is as if we are in some sort of battle and you say:
"let us duel, I saw you were using a sword so I would like you to engage my shield", and I say:
"but I cannot penetrate that shield with my sword, since you have crafted that shield specifically against my sword and any attempt to wield this sword would be in vain for thus duel, so instead I will use a bow or a pike or something", and you say:
"no, but you must use the sword for that is the only reason I chose to duel you"
So, for the purpose of the discussion, I cannot advocate an appeal to liberty as it is not possible. So... I guess I concede and wave the white flag to your shield? But... only because I am not allowed to use a more productive argument.
Please understand I mean this with utmost civility, but the exclusive premise is rather pointless, especially for a "resources against pro-life rhetoric" thread.
2 more things, first you said
including refusal to admit that you meant what you said about mental illness in your original post that I quoted.
Which when I typed my original post I had not yet decided that I would not argue that. This is because, like I said, I don't know, and it doesn't even matter if suicidal tendencies are itself a mental disorder or not, because suicidal tendencies are not recognized as a treatable disorder by psychiatry. Instead it is usually (although not exclusively since it is a controversial topic (surprise, surprise!)) seen as a symptom or some sort of diagnoseable and treatable illness, such as chronic depression or schizophrenia. Me arguing suicide is a mental illness itself would be silly when it is not treatable. Instead I explain how what is treatable is a likely underlying disorder is treatable, which would provide the chance of alleviating the general pain of life and thus give a reason for people to not kill themselves
And then
Therefore, I find the first portions of your comment are not debate or agreeing to have the same discussion, but bait. I disengage from it.
Well, I don't have much to say on this but I didn't even know I was baiting when I was using rational arguments against your analogy. As I said above, that discussion is not possible, but okay.
Now, to defend my actual claims:
The point is to give up one's life in service of one's country if asked (drafted), walking into a method of death willingly, therefore akin to suicide.
I find there are 3 different ideas being presented here, mashed together.
1 - being drafted for service, which is illegal (everywhere I know) to decline
2 - volunteering for service
3 - suicide
1 is the most dissimilar to suicide, because it is at its premise being forced to be employed in a dangerous job. The country would almost certainly prefer if you didn't die either, because in many countries that would require paying reparations to family in addition to the general disadvantages of a casualty. I do not see where submitting to a draft comes anywhere close to condemning oneself to immediate and voluntary death.
2 is also dissimilar because it lacks intent to die and lacks the immediate-ness of suicide. Suicide is an act, and volunteering for a dangerous job usually does not include the intention to die, but more importantly does not involve the actual conscious decision. Volunteers do not decide "I will stand up and be shot to death now", they usually intend to live to continue their service to country and if they do die it is rarely because of their own action, it is a murder.
3 is only fulfilled if there is an immediate act with the intent of death. A kamikaze is a good example, it is a brief act with the intent to die.
Sometimes people can be forced to do things against their will, which is tyranny. Examples are citizens under oppressive governments (and some members here are), victims of human trafficking (and some members here have been), and young people with no resources who are trapped in situations of coercive domestic violence (and some members here are).
True, so I suppose it depends on if the individual determines the pain of tyranny (but I should stress I'm referring to directly painful tyranny. For example if you are an average individual in Canada and are censored for saying bad things, that is not a justifiable tyranny because it lacks pain) it could be reasonable to justify suicide, but it would be foolish to even entertain the thought that this is a universal and normative case for every individual who has decided their government or some other authoritative force has wronged them.
If I'm understanding you correctly, if someone has an illness that causes unbearable suffering, and there is not yet a cure, they are responsible to keep living in that unbearable suffering for a greater good, and contribute to the finding of a cure.
No, besides the point that treatment is an alternative to cure, ill people do not contribute to finding any cure nor to a greater good. What I am saying is that, in cases where there is not an obvious permission for suicide, deciding that suicide is the rational decision for contracting a disease will not do very much in making people want to find a cure. Not because there is the moral weight of a stockpile of suffering people, but because people will conflate suicide as the cure. For example something like fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, where injuries received will create bone melds, is bad and occasionally as youth but certainly towards the end of life painful. However, if the medical community decided that this pain is so great (which people with this condition can usually still do active things in life, sometimes braces are needed though) then there will not be a cure developed, because a stoic has decided that suicide is the cure. The deciding factor cannot be a normative claim that "if you have an illness and feel like dying, then die if you want" because suggesting this is counterproductive to the cure, and this is not a justifiable question that can be decided by authority
This point has a few different quotes I should address
I'd suggest asking a very large random sampling of people in receipt of government programs such as unemployment and public housing whether that poverty is painful.
The overwhelming majority would say yes. However we do not stop here, we ask first "is this pain great enough for suicide?" and second "is this pain curable?". Most people would answer no and yes, since most people in poverty either do not expect to be in poverty forever or are unsure if they will be but do not consider it bad enough for voluntary death. Yes, there are many cases in which poverty is an extreme and incurably painful situation, but to assume this is a universal justification since pain is unknowably great enough and unknowably cureable is wrong. Once again it is a problem of arbitrary lines. A presentation of the problem could be: imagine if a child was orphaned and had to eat canned food and share a room with rude strangers for several weeks and was considering killing themselves, however the next day a rich uncle would find them and they then lived a life of pleasure and happiness. If we are to declare their immediate adverse conditions is a justification for suicide in this case I think that would be a shortsighted and silly decision. Once again that is the problem with suicide in general since we don't know if pain is cureable (although more so than not, from my experience here)
A member just posted the other day about feeling literally tortured in council housing in the UK. We've had homeless members. We've had poor members from all over the world, both developed and not. And just because programs are available does not mean one qualifies, or qualifies quickly enough. For instance, in the US, if one needs to be on Social Security Disability, they have to stop working, then apply for benefits, then wait a bare minimum of months with no income for approval. People who qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers or supported housing are on waiting lists for years. Once one is in the system, they live in dangerous neighborhoods and buildings where victimization due to crime, domestic violence, slum lords and other sources is rampant.
Indeed this is a great problem, and I think it is a fixable political matter that is criminally neglected in the modern, industrialized world. And as I said, I recognize some struggles as great enough to culminate in voluntary perishing, but as I see poverty as a case of artificial scarcity that can be resolved, so people committing suicide because of this is a preventable cause of death.
I think you speak from a place of privilege in that you have not been exposed to what such pain is, or perhaps just one small view of it.
I live in poverty. Well, the net household income <24k sort, and I am fortunate enough to not have to live in a community shelter so obviously I cannot speak for those who do. I suppose my situation is sort of "painful" but if anyone was in a similar one to be I would find contemplating suicide absurd. I certainly have limited resources and am sort of socially estranged (if my verbiage didn't already demonstrate that), but eventually I will be free and autonomous and will not have any more financial burden, so considering suicide because of that would be pointless if it were for even minute pain.
If you have, and you still feel blessed, I am genuinely happy for you.
No, I am not blessed, and I think even the people that think they are in this circumstance have blinded themselves with humbleness. Although if being blessed means not wanting to kill myself, then sure, I am blessed.
Drunkenness is an analogy for not being in control of one's faculties and doing things one wouldn't do sober. In such a state, one can do harm to others, or be more vulnerable to harm from others. The whole point of virtue in Stoicism is for life to flow more smoothly for all, same with Buddhist precepts, it's about common law. If one cannot control their actions and choices, and they do not receive adquate help no matter how much they've tried, then suicide may be liberation from such afflictions should their own agency even in getting help not be enough.
Okay, that makes more sense, albeit I still disagree. This seems less of an issue in modern times than Epictetus and Seneca's time though, because almost all "madness" is treatable and in modern society instead of condoning suicide we are almost always able to give those suffering from madness care to alleviate pain. The problem is not madness in itself, but the availability of treatment for it. I can only offer a similar rebuttal that I mentioned to the poverty point, that it is case by case and arbitrary but we still should not rationalize suicide in cure for a treatable condition (in most cases).
At this point you say "I am aware this is how you feel." but I don't even remember what I said you're responding to so I will move on.
My response is that when something is repressed, such as the idea of suicide, it gains greater power than it would have and grows to monstrous proportions... etc.
I cannot argue against this, I'm usually skeptical of the sort of "a healthy dose it okay" argument against censorship but admittedly my brief experience here has proved no contradiction. I did think it was interesting how you mentioned:
It's not a suicide fetish fest around here, with the exceptional outlier.
And on a different note I agree, I don't think it's a "fetish" for lack of a better word, but I do find it curious why there so many members that aren't suicidal and who don't seem to have a primary goal or promoting a side or providing comfort. I'm assuming there's a sort of "aesthetic" to it which is a factor in attracting members, but I really have no good explanation for the site's activity
the topic at hand, such as was liberation/freedom.
Like I said, I didn't realize at the time the conversation was strictly limited to "liberation" since I neglected that "the discussion" was strictly of a liberty ethos from assuming the thread title was open to all rhetoric of a logical and civil nature.
I like to let the bouncers know and let them determine who can be in the house or not, or at least keep any eye out. I do the same when minors come in.
I'm not sure how minors would be allowed since the vetting system mentions it would decline them if they are one, and why the people who inevitably lie would announce they have lied (or they might not, I don't know how the system works very well)
Winning is regularly repeated theme in the user names and signatures of pro-life propagandists who join the site.
I was not expecting that but I am not surprised. I'm curious what they think they're winning against, I guess just suicide in itself. I suppose I should consider changing it to disassociate with them, but since it's already been mentioned I might as well stick with it. And I am a propagandist no more than anyone else with an opinion is one. I have my ideas and they have theirs, and I am not afraid to share it but I will not preach that I am "the way". I cannot help most of the people here, especially with my manner of text.
Once again, I note your appeal to unity.
This time although it probably seemed like it I am not trying to say "hey nice leftist gang", I was more so trying to make it seem as not-abhorrent as possible when explaining why I have a Mussolini quote as my signature, since if you were a leftist it would make me look very bad (although I am not sure how you managed to decouple Barthes and Foucault from their Marxist analysis? It doesn't matter though).
Based on the slippery nature of your previous response, I choose to be done with this particular conversation between us, and you of course are welcome to the last word, no matter how you state it or what questions you may want to ask me.
Oh
This isn't very relevant but probably important to mention since not very many people will understand what I mean by this, so this is an open note:
(I concede you got me with Kant)
I'm surprised out of my arguments that one was mentioned in their introduction in particular since this was more so an allusion and less of a point in itself.
Anyway, if you ever have the
unfortunate and god-forsaken chance to discuss morality with a Kantian deontologist, they will bring something up called the Categorical Imperative, which is a brief list of what sort of actions are moral for people to do. These sorts of lists are called normative. You will notice if you ask them "why should I listen to this?" they will say "because it just works" and leave it at that. This justification works if and only if they prove that their propositions are true and it is most beneficial if we uphold them without dropping any or modifying the Imperative. Because if you drop a proposition, what stops you from adding a different one? Or adding several, or dropping another one.... etc. . In my arguments above then against the stoic quote, if I really wanted to (although it would of been a disingenuous tactic since this is a discussion, not high school debate) I could of attacked only a single point with that same number of paragraphs, and since a point would probably be dropped, it would render the justification for the entire proposition obsolete. Apparently, the OP decided this worked, which is why they mentioned it, but I'm guessing for the sake of discussion they chose to continue defending the points.