Honestly people around here LOVE to sugarcoat things but reality is there is reasons that are quite frankly not good enough to kill yourself.
suicide is an inviolable
right. you shouldn't need to be 'good enough' considering that suicide requires a great deal of planning in thought and execution, as is evidenced by the great number of people who express wishes to commit suicide, yet cannot on grounds of having insufficient means or control of their current circumstances. there is a difference between ideation and execution. if you are seriously considering going through with the act, it's probable to assume that they are truly afflicted by whatever is causing them pain, or feel that there circumstances are far too overpowering to change.
That's why no one takes us serious and acts like our problems are fixable because of the small delusional groups of people that need to wake the F up.
that might be true in some sense. it may not be seen as sufficient reason to kill yourself because your partner broke up with you, and, indeed, there are certainly many issues which are 'fixable.' but who are you to decide what ought and ought not to be sufficient reason for suicide? even if i disagree with the surface level reasoning, there may be deeper problems which i have negated by assumption. of course, this isn't to say that it is true in all cases, but that i am in no way an ideal observer that can determine whether or not a cause of suicide is legitimate or not. i think that we have the tendency to offset our own pain against others in favor of overshadowing them, reducing suffering to a contest. let's be frank: there will
always be people suffering
more than you, and not all of these people think that suicide is a viable path; but are we obligated then to live, in spite of our own pain? i have a feeling you won't acknowledge this for the case of the terminally alone. there is a hierarchy, sure. but entreating myself to reconsider suicide as a consequence of submitting to someone higher on the echelon of pain should
not be seen as anything other than a forceful imposition.
Even if it was easier to die from legal euthanasia, you'd still need a VALID reason. If someone want to die cuz they can't find someone, then oh will but nothing is lost. But if my problems were as simple as that, I'd find the closest idiot.
that's why i said that it's a little different in the case of euthanasia, which becomes a policy issue. it's pretty clear that you're hellbent on grossly oversimplifying and misrepresenting the argument, though i'm going to appeal to my better judgement and assume that something in the past has distorted your view of relationships as being something which can solve your issues.
My favorite quote after is all beggars can't be choosers so if you're begging for a relationship, well go to the nearest neighborhood, there is hookers out there and homeless people that will surely do anything for a place or a couple of bucks. That's nothing sad. That's nothing out of your control. Those are fixable.
it doesn't apply to relationships since there are standards which we are hardwired to, such as basic forms of attraction being a criterion for which to pursue partners, which is true of both sexes. it doesn't help anyone if you merely resort to dating someone who you aren't attracted to. i'm not arguing
for incels, since they are irrelevant to the discussion, so i'll desist in claiming that there are those who are unattractive to
all people.
yes, you can easily hire hookers to prostitute themselves, but that doesn't resolve any underlying issues. it's pretty clear that sex itself isn't the sole issue for the terminally alone. it's related to a whole gamut of desires, such as that of intimacy, affection, etc., all of which are consummated to some degree in sexual activity, and thus never truly independent of it. but sex can lack all of these things if for the sole intent of pleasure alone. so no, you are wrong in saying that hookers will fix anything. moreover, it's probably a very bad idea to tell men who seek codependency to first turn to mindless sexual activity.
If you're ugly then work on it. You're fat? Oh well count calories and lose weight. You dress ugly? If you have a job, then surely you can buy better clothes. You've got pimples? If you have insurance or a job you can go to the dermatologist to get that fixed. Clear skin, dressing well, being fit and having low standard makes it pretty easy to find any low grade relationships and no one deserves the best possible relationship just because they're here, especially when some people NEED things that's vital to living and they can't even get that! Being happy is one thing but if a romantic relationship is all you need to be happy then sad to say but you have a lot of things you need to work on.
a surprisingly redpilled idea. i thought that you would cling to the idea that personality is what determines your success, and not necessarily looks, which many women claim are not as important as the former. well, this argument is effectively useless considering i don't actually believe that looks are everything. i do acknowledge that they are necessary for making the initial step, and there are natural screening processes which occur in any environment where both sexes interact.
i understand the argument you are trying to make, and i respectively disagree. i'm not saying that relationships will
cure your depression, nor should a partner be depended on to provide them with means of recovery. the discontent that a person feels when they are not in a relationship is really a discontent with their level of social fitness; are these people not allowed to complain? the very nature of their problem is that they are unable to enter into relationships due to deeper concerns. if you hand them a partner on a silver platter, obviously it won't cure their issues. but you can't argue that a lack of relationships is insufficient reason for suicide whilst also claiming that they ought
not to enter into them due to their own issues. "just fix your problems!" is to assume that these are inessential, surface-level issues. what about those who are physically disabled, and hence unable to find partners? or those who have crippling social anxiety, or other issues which may make social interaction ineluctable and futile? "well, i've seen people with these issues overcome them," is almost equivalent to saying to the clinically depressed "it sucks that you're suffering, but there
are people like you who have gotten better, so you should too." so, individuals are seen as lazy, uncooperative and cowardly for not choosing the path of improvement, despite non-trivial issues. this seems to veil a particularly "pro-life" attitude, a phrase i don't like to use but is amply descriptive of your kind of thinking.
well, let's assume that you have actually considered these cases, and that they are exceptions to your rule. in general, those who possess no debilitating or life-altering maladies which would normally private any access to the dating market, are seen as individuals who
can fix their issues, but simply choose not to, partly out of delusion or something else. again, you make far too many assumptions on what has driven an individual into chronic loneliness.
i reject the claim entirely that if a person's threshold for happiness is entering into a relationship then other issues should be addressed; that is, relationships should not be the saving grace in your life. again, you are in no position to determine what people ought and ought not to value, especially when the need to enter into relationships is an essential biological imperative. never claim what people
ought to desire, considering that relationships in general are seen as pivotal to leading a good life. it's not true in all cases, but it's a view that is quite generally held, hence why we have institutions such as marriage in the first place. who are we to judge those consigned to the values of society, which are inescapable?
Being lonely isn't something that can only be fixed through romantic relationships, actually friendships are much more important for that long term. So miss me with that BS.
romantic relationships and friendships offer different forms of value. do you have evidence that friendships are more important in the long-term than romantic partners? again, there are things that friendship cannot offer, such as intimacy and the entire gamut of attributes relating to sex. and clearly you don't understand the value of sex as corresponding with a general level of social fitness, which is why i claimed before that prostitutes won't amend this fundamental issue. i'll copy paste something i wrote in another thread, since i think it's pertinent:
"the term 'virgin' is just a neat little contraction of a gamut of socially undesirable attributes, often conflated and seen as causative of virginity. i agree that few really care whether or not you are a virgin. but overall virginity indicates a failure of some sort, and an individual cannot be blamed for rightfully believing that his values are consigned to the social contract. again, the danger is in privation of contractual forms of social engagement, which basically means that attributes which are identifiable with virginity will derive from some root cause, and that both the function and identification of these traits will lead to social disengagement or prejudice."
If that was majority of our problems, we wouldn't need this website for that. I wouldn't even be contemplating ending my life if that was my problem. Look at everyone. How many of them can say their relationships is good? Most of them are dating lying scums and telling themselves it's love when in reality love isn't real! I am just so tired of the constant pandering to you guys as if we're not all suffering worse.
don't assume that just because
you don't value their concerns that others
ought not to as well. this essentially is reducible to a strong pro-life position, which is contrary to the aims of this site. "well, i've suffered more than you, and i think life is precious! therefore you're a coward for wanting the easy way out when
i lived through the pain of my life."
it's pretty clear that you've suffered a great deal, and i'm sorry for that. but in the future, try not to project your issues onto others.
i also don't know what you mean when you say that people pander to the chronically alone, which somehow undermines the concerns of those who you view are suffering more. when? where? how? i really can't fathom this argument. even if you want to introduce a hierarchy of pain outside of the context of euthanasia for god knows what fucking reason, i'm still of the belief that the threshold of sufficient reason to commit suicide includes chronic loneliness. it's a personal choice, after all.
And then you guys tell yourselves that it's not a competition but it's funny how we're all in the same shoes but some people's wound are deeper than others. I guess it really isn't the same after all and the sooner we're honest about that, the easier it is to recognize the difference and maybe then people won't act like suicide is this impulsive decision that can somehow get better with time.
well, it isn't a competition. that's an absurd claim. the endgoal is the same; we aren't competing over who has more of a right to die, except in cases of euthanasia where it becomes a policy issue. and no, enforcing your view will not change how people perceive suicide. it will always be considered a cardinal sin. so, if that's the case, why should you care how people view it, if you yourself aim to commit suicide? i'm sure it isn't because you want to shoulder a certain kind of heroism in the act. suicide will always be maligned for the harm that it brings to people related to the suicide victim. in essence, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, only those who are perceived as having the greatest reason for committing suicide should be permitted to do so, in order so that social norms can begin to accept it as something that is not
necessary malignant, despite the harm that it may bring to others. that to me sounds like a naive utopia that you've built, though i could very well be strawmanning your original intent.
Depression doesn't get better with time and anxiety sure as hell doesn't and all the other mental issues don't. And suicide is linked to mental issues and last I checked relationship wasn't a mental issue.
but chronic loneliness fundamentally derives from mental issues? i really don't know enough about the biological origins of depression and anxiety, but let's not argue that these are all hardwired, unchanging features of our neurotypes. refer to my argument previously over those who have improved from these conditions looking at those who suffer the same conditions, sans the will to life, with contempt. i'm almost certain that there are those who have recovered from depression and anxiety, despite suffering suicidal ideation, and have gone on to lead meaningful, productive lives.
i have a headache and am quite inarticulate at the moment. i chose to abstain from mentioning what i personally believe to be the key failure in chronic loneliness, that being functional incompatibility on a social level: in other words, the deterministic nature of personality being devoid of socially desirable qualities locking an individual into circumstances which private the possibility of relationships. i personally view personality as independent of our own wishes and built out of immutable characteristics which are inarticulable and hence not subject to conscious change. but that wasn't needed here, i guess.
