Discussion 'Other Side' references are not helpful: Discuss

[HopeDiesLast]

@GoodPersonEffed

Truth be told, this discussion was going perfectly fine until YOU decided to derail it by pseudo-psycho-analyzing the OP.

Truth also be told, you do the same thing in many threads here. It appears to be your life mission to "unmask" and call out everyone as manipulative and/or abusive. Heck, I've seen posts where you conclude that a forum member's parent or friend IRL is manipulative/abusive based on a single post written by that member. Conclusions about complete strangers whom you've never met. I get it, you read a book about manipulation techniques and now you're trying to apply it to real world scenarios. Unfortunately, by doing this, you've turned into the biggest manipulator yourself.

Go ahead, pseudo-psycho-analyze that!

 

[liverpoolfan]

I honestly don't even know how such a thing could be regulated. What would the rule be? "If you say goodbye to someone who decides to CTB, do not suggest that they will die and then enter into any state that cannot be scientifically demonstrated as being real." ? Is that a reasonable rule? Serious inquiry.

Not a rule [I'm not a mod here] but a suggestion. And that suggestion would be the along the same lines as it was in the OP:
"I hope your passing is as peaceful as possible and know that your pain and suffering will come to an end"

And the reasons for doing so would be the same as they were in the OP: that they convey the same sentiment, but do not require magical thinking and, more importantly, don't reinforce or introduce the belief that all someone needs to do to wake up and experience a happier life than they one they have is to kill themselves.

Those with strong beliefs about afterlives and astral planes would lose nothing by using the above phrase if their sincere desire was merely to offer kind words and comfort; any potential harm or influencing would be avoided, whilst still allowing people with strong beliefs in astral planes and afterlives to continue believing in astral planes and afterlives. It seems to me inarguable that one option has potential risks and the other does not - the only argument is over the extent of those risks. My personal view is that they are small yet not insignificant and so [assuming one's primary interest is to do no harm] the option with no risks is therefore preferable.

Anyway, at this point I don't see any further input from me is needed as I've set out my argument as clearly as possible. For those who have followed the argument properly and take a different view after careful consideration , that's your prerogative as a fellow and equal member of this community - and why the thread was titled "'Other Side' references are not helpful" rather than "'Other Side' references should be banned"'.

For those who cannot follow the argument or are merely seeking to introduce drama where none is needed, then explaining it once again and/or getting into personal disputes is not something I think will be helpful.

Finally, I'm not sure if the 'ignore' function works for both the ignorer and the ignoree, but in case it doesn't, I should point out that any further time spent "pseudo-psycho-analyzing the OP" will be wasted as the OP most certainly won't be reading it.

 

[Soul]

Ye don't expect much support here OP, you'll be met by passive aggressive "souls"

Hey - I'm not always passive aggressive, @spanishguy22!

I pondered @liverpoolfan's theses a little more. First off, I believe what he's interested in is a debate, which is a form of discussion not everyone enjoys or is prepared for; that in itself doesn't mean anyone's stance is right or wrong, but it can sure cause a lot of misunderstandings.

Second, if I imagine people reading goodbye threads - not the one whose thread it is, but onlookers, bystanders, lurkers - and seeing repeated assertions that people *know* death will mean the end of suffering, let's say I can imagine someone who's already considering suicide feeling encouraged to commit suicide. I don't think that would be anyone's fault or responsibility, but @liverpoolfan would like to minimize the chances of someone feeling encouraged.

He feels "I know your suffering will be over" is less likely to encourage someone than phrasing like "see you on the other side". I don't agree with that assessment.

So how about writing "see you in hell" on goodbye threads? It's "magical thinking", but I could probably feel it wouldn't risk encouraging many people other than satanists or the chronically sardonic to commit suicide.

However, "see you in hell" could seem harsh to the person actually in the process of committing suicide. So what about "I hope you have an easy transition to whatever happens next"? Still too romanticised? Maybe ... "Off you go to who knows what"?

Or maybe we just each write what we consider appropriate.

 

[Apathy79]

He feels "I know your suffering will be over" is less likely to encourage someone than phrasing like "see you on the other side". I don't agree with that assessment.

I read it more as he feels "I know your suffering will be over" is an objectively true statement where "see you on the other side" is something off with the fairies. Whereas I think we have demonstrated they are just different belief systems. Both would be encouraging at the end, both may or may not be true, and both are primarily sent and received as loving gestures.

 

[Roger]

So how about writing "see you in hell" on goodbye threads? It's "magical thinking", but I could probably feel it wouldn't risk encouraging many people other than satanists or the chronically sardonic to commit suicide.

However, "see you in hell" could seem harsh to the person actually in the process of committing suicide.

Or maybe we just each write what we consider appropriate.

 

[Soul]

I read it more as he feels "I know your suffering will be over" is an objectively true statement where "see you on the other side" is something off with the fairies. Whereas I think we have demonstrated they are just different belief systems. Both would be encouraging at the end, both may or may not be true, and both are primarily sent and received as loving gestures.

I think @liverpoolfan will need to chime in here. Is your objection to "see you on the other side" due to the risk that it might encourage someone to commit suicide, or due to your conviction that it's untrue?

As I've noted, see both expressions as possibly true and equally likely to sound encouraging to someone who's considering suicide anyway.

 

[Apathy79]

His argument is clear enough. In the opening post he outlines that "see you on the other side" encourages people to commit suicide based on fanciful ideas. If you're going to provide encouragement, do it in real terms like "I know your suffering will be over" which doesn't require magical thinking.

You pointed out that the proposed alternate "I know your suffering will be over" is equally "magical" as the "see you" version, which is a correct statement as elaborated in other posts. So either way they are just sentiments that may or may not be true and the person will take what they like from them. If you were going to ban see you on the other side, you'd have to also ban I know your suffering will be over and the whole thing just seems unnecessary.

We don't know for sure what's going to happen and we say whatever we think is best for the person at the time. That's fine with me.

 

[liverpoolfan]

Ok well it seems one final clarification is in fact necessary after all.

Yes, I think that magical thinking is objectively worse than non-magical thinking when trying to come to reasonable conclusions about, well, anything. I have yet to encounter a robust argument to the contrary.
But, to repeat myself yet again, this is not the point of this thread. I'm happy to take part in a thread arguing the advantages of evidence-based thinking - but this is not that thread.

Let me try and explain via analogy why it is false that "both expressions (are) possibly true and equally likely to sound encouraging to someone who's considering suicide anyway".

Let's imagine 100 people are seriously considering committing suicide. Of those 100, 30 are doing so because they have incurable disease; 20 are doing it because their mental faculties are impaired through neurological disorders and/or substance abuse; 10 are doing it because of financial reasons; 20 are doing it because they find the political and environmental trajectory of the world irredeemable and don't want to watch it any longer; 10 are doing it because of specific family or work-related tragedies from which they cannot recover; 10 are doing it because they have never felt love or acceptance due to sexual, mental or physical issues or a lifetime of abuse. (Based on the posts one reads here, I feel I'm significantly understating the size of this last group, but I wanted to do so in order to show that even with a minority the argument is valid.)

Now, ask yourself which message would be more likely to strike a chord with this final group. Would it be "When you die, your suffering will end?" or would it be "When you die, you will live again in a world where you are loved and cherished?"

One could make the argument that because no one knows 100% what happens after death, that both hypotheses (nothing and blissful afterlife) are equally probable.
My personal view is this argument is based on a complete misunderstanding and in fact a grievous misrepresentation of probability - not to mention it rests on utter disregard for the facts that we do in fact know: cells die, consciousness resides entirely in the brain, the brain is composed exclusively of cells.

Nevertheless, this, once again, is not even the point. The point is that even if you disregard all of that, and cleave to the position that because there is no definitive answer all postulations have equal merit, you are still left with the same question: which option is the most attractive (perhaps to all the 100, but specifically to the 10 who are here because they have never had the love and care they needed)?

Is it the promise of an end to suffering or the promise of a new life of happiness and love?

I submit, again, that whilst theoretically both options are *potentially* possible, one offers a reward and thus imparts a motivation that the other does not.
And, whilst I'm repeating myself anyway, I may as well repeat the point that if your primary purpose is to give comfort, you have nothing to lose by adopting the "suffering is over" approach - whereas the "after death you will be happy and loved" approach carries potential problems which are simply not necessary and could, in some cases, cause people to commit suicide who would otherwise not have done so.

I have seen the argument advanced that "It's not my problem if people are influenced or not by what I believe". I take great issue with that not only as it seems callous and selfish, but it goes against the generally accepted view that people's decisions to take their own lives are their own and should be free from outside influence.
Telling human beings what they want to hear has a long and storied history of success; to deny that someone desperate for happiness and love would be influenced by offers of happiness and love is either idiocy or malignancy or both.

I imagine everyone here is heartily sick of anti-suicide advocates seeking to impose their belief systems on us - and removing our rights to make rational, clear headed decisions about our own bodies and minds. All I'm proposing is that we take care not to do the same.

 

[Jean Améry]

Merely pointing out that in my view a clear-headed, realistic discussion of dying and death is preferable to misleading and/or overly romanticised views which could influence people in extremis.

In theory I agree with the first part of that sentence but in practice you can't impose your views on people just because you think they are more rational or realistic. I do doubt most people (even here) would be swayed by what perfect strangers write and in the cases of goodbye threads in the overwhelming majority of case the decision has already been made.

The argument: 'this is bad/not helpful' does sound rather dogmatic and would be difficult to substantiate with actual, verified data.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Ok well it seems one final clarification is in fact necessary after all.

Yes, I think that magical thinking is objectively worse than non-magical thinking when trying to come to reasonable conclusions about, well, anything. I have yet to encounter a robust argument to the contrary.
But, to repeat myself yet again, this is not the point of this thread. I'm happy to take part in a thread arguing the advantages of evidence-based thinking - but this is not that thread.

Let me try and explain via analogy why it is false that "both expressions (are) possibly true and equally likely to sound encouraging to someone who's considering suicide anyway".

Let's imagine 100 people are seriously considering committing suicide. Of those 100, 30 are doing so because they have incurable disease; 20 are doing it because their mental faculties are impaired through neurological disorders and/or substance abuse; 10 are doing it because of financial reasons; 20 are doing it because they find the political and environmental trajectory of the world irredeemable and don't want to watch it any longer; 10 are doing it because of specific family or work-related tragedies from which they cannot recover; 10 are doing it because they have never felt love or acceptance due to sexual, mental or physical issues or a lifetime of abuse. (Based on the posts one reads here, I feel I'm significantly understating the size of this last group, but I wanted to do so in order to show that even with a minority the argument is valid.)

Now, ask yourself which message would be more likely to strike a chord with this final group. Would it be "When you die, your suffering will end?" or would it be "When you die, you will live again in a world where you are loved and cherished?"

One could make the argument that because no one knows 100% what happens after death, that both hypotheses (nothing and blissful afterlife) are equally probable.
My personal view is this argument is based on a complete misunderstanding and in fact a grievous misrepresentation of probability - not to mention it rests on utter disregard for the facts that we do in fact know: cells die, consciousness resides entirely in the brain, the brain is composed exclusively of cells.

Nevertheless, this, once again, is not even the point. The point is that even if you disregard all of that, and cleave to the position that because there is no definitive answer all postulations have equal merit, you are still left with the same question: which option is the most attractive (perhaps to all the 100, but specifically to the 10 who are here because they have never had the love and care they needed)?

Is it the promise of an end to suffering or the promise of a new life of happiness and love?

I submit, again, that whilst theoretically both options are *potentially* possible, one offers a reward and thus imparts a motivation that the other does not.
And, whilst I'm repeating myself anyway, I may as well repeat the point that if your primary purpose is to give comfort, you have nothing to lose by adopting the "suffering is over" approach - whereas the "after death you will be happy and loved" approach carries potential problems which are simply not necessary and could, in some cases, cause people to commit suicide who would otherwise not have done so.

I have seen the argument advanced that "It's not my problem if people are influenced or not by what I believe". I take great issue with that not only as it seems callous and selfish, but it goes against the generally accepted view that people's decisions to take their own lives are their own and should be free from outside influence.
Telling human beings what they want to hear has a long and storied history of success; to deny that someone desperate for happiness and love would be influenced by offers of happiness and love is either idiocy or malignancy or both.

I imagine everyone here is heartily sick of anti-suicide advocates seeking to impose their belief systems on us - and removing our rights to make rational, clear headed decisions about our own bodies and minds. All I'm proposing is that we take care not to do the same.

Eloquently argued. I sometimes feel that offering comfort in a goodbye thread comes with the price of risking potential influence. And I do feel responsible, even if I shouldn't. Decisions rest with the individual but we can all be influenced by the words of others.
I question whether anyone attempting to kill themselves should feel completely comfortable with the prospect.
To be clear, I don't know. I'm not even sure this quandary has an answer for me.

So how about writing "see you in hell" on goodbye threads? It's "magical thinking", but I could probably feel it wouldn't risk encouraging many people other than satanists or the chronically sardonic to commit suicide.

@Soul is it wrong that this made me laugh? It is isn't it? Yeah. Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.

 

[Amossoma543]

I submit, again, that whilst theoretically both options are *potentially* possible, one offers a reward and thus imparts a motivation that the other does not.
And, whilst I'm repeating myself anyway, I may as well repeat the point that if your primary purpose is to give comfort, you have nothing to lose by adopting the "suffering is over" approach - whereas the "after death you will be happy and loved" approach carries potential problems which are simply not necessary and could, in some cases, cause people to commit suicide who would otherwise not have done so.

I don't know if I made this apparent before, not that it matters, I suppose, but I think we both agree about what actually "happens" after. Nothing; however, I still don't see the harm of making those fanciful wishes to people who decide to pass, even though I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it.

One of the main reasons is that a person's right to CTB doesn't need justification. Thus, for me, essentially, it's just a natural death. It's but one of many ways a person can die. That I choose it myself and do it myself doesn't make it unnatural, nor does it mean that you (or anyone else) has any obligations with regard to what they say to me before, during, or after.

I don't think anyone has any sort of duty to make suicide either sound good or bad, especially when a person has already decided this is what they're going to do and has stated that they are now exiting stage left. They've made their decision...any responses they get are just the natural result of deciding to make public a very personal decision.