Method SN doubts

[Adieu]

How much time will it take?
Why is only 15 gms? What if I take more?

 

[LegaliseIt!]

How much time will it take?
Why is only 15 gms? What if I take more?

You need to research more:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/stans-guide-to-sn.27535/

All of your questions are answered in here. It is unethical for members to give advice. Please respect that.

 

[Ark]

Please read the posted guide several times. It will answer most, if not all of any questions you may have. Literally one of the best guides you will ever read.

 

[sleepy dog]

It is unethical for members to give advice.

I am not trying to start an argument, but this site exists so members can get info and give each other advice. It is not against the rules. It is absolutely not "unethical". Its the entire reason this site exists.

 

[Thomas Xavier Light]

I am not trying to start an argument, but this site exists so members can get info and give each others advice. It is not against the rules. It is absolutely not "unethical". Its the entire reason this site exists.

I completely agree. What we shouldn't be doing is encouraging people to go through with it and commit suicide, but merely discussing suicide and providing info about methods is what the site is for, right?

 

[BlueWidow]

Please read the posted guide several times. It will answer most, if not all of any questions you may have. Literally one of the best guides you will ever read.

QUOTE]
Agree, Stan's guide is the best. Stan was the man. That's why he is so missed. But his guide still remains to answer our questions.
RIP Stan.

 

[GinaIsReady]

I completely agree. What we shouldn't be doing is encouraging people to go through with it and commit suicide, but merely discussing suicide and providing info about methods is what the site is for, right?

I completely agree with this distinction.

 

[LegaliseIt!]

I am not trying to start an argument, but this site exists so members can get info and give each other advice. It is not against the rules. It is absolutely not "unethical". Its the entire reason this site exists.

Hi Sleepy Dog,
I always find a great deal of thought behind your posts.
The site rules actually are against "advising".
Please see below:
The information offered on this site is for educational purposes only. We do not encourage, advise, nor aid suicide in any way. The way you use the information provided on this website is fully and solely your responsibility, and you should be aware of the laws in your own country.

Hypothetically:
Giving someone dosage recommendations for example, means that you are super helpful to a struggling person. And then:

Politically connected parents of a 15 year old in a conservative part of the US are able to sue you as an accessory to murder and have the Site removed. If you need to read how parental hysteria gets out of hand, Google "Shawn Shatto". She was 25. It would have been so much worse if she had been under18. So, consider referring method advice seekers to the established guides.
Please.

 

[sleepy dog]

Hi Sleepy Dog,
I always find a great deal of thought behind your posts.
The site rules actually are against "advising".
Please see below:
The information offered on this site is for educational purposes only. We do not encourage, advise, nor aid suicide in any way. The way you use the information provided on this website is fully and solely your responsibility, and you should be aware of the laws in your own country.

Hypothetically:
Giving someone dosage recommendations for example, means that you are super helpful to a struggling person. And then:

Politically connected parents of a 15 year old in a conservative part of the US are able to sue you as an accessory to murder and have the Site removed. If you need to read how parental hysteria gets out of hand, Google "Shawn Shatto". She was 25. It would have been so much worse if she had been under18. So, consider referring method advice seekers to the established guides.
Please.

Again, I am not trying to argue. But it might be good that we discuss the subject. I did not know the rules were edited again on December 14. The members don't get a notification when they are edited. You quoted this section of the rules. "The information offered on this site is for educational purposes only. We do not encourage, advise, nor aid suicide in any way. The way you use the information provided on this website is fully and solely your responsibility, and you should be aware of the laws in your own country."

From reading various dictionaries, the definition of advise is:
1- to offer counsel
2- to offer an opinion or suggestion
3- to give a recommendation about what should be done
4- to give information
5- recommend particular actions
6- to talk with someone in order to decide what should be done
7- to tell someone facts or information

Therefore, this website provides advise. The members have been and are currently offering counsel, opinion, suggestions, recommendations, information, particular actions, talking with someone in order to decide what should be done, and giving facts. That is almost everything we do here. So I guess we are violating the rules constantly. That includes you. Posting links or referring to "Stan's Guide to SN" on this site, which you did, is the very definition of advise.

You said "So, consider referring method advice seekers to the established guides." When you said that you "advocated or promoted a belief or course of action", which is the definition of prosyletize. That is a violation of the rules. But I really don't care, I wasn't going to do it anyway.

So the rules are contradictory. It is confusing for everybody. But its like the warnings on labels. They have to be written, to prevent legal problems.

 

[Shakespear's Brother]

Politically connected parents of a 15 year old in a conservative part of the US are able to sue you as an accessory to murder and have the Site removed. If you need to read how parental hysteria gets out of hand, Google "[well-known case]". She was 25. It would have been so much worse if she had been under18. So, consider referring method advice seekers to the established guides.

Your posts are quite engaging, and I feel curious about how you arrived at this point of view.

With regard to the well-known case connected to this website, one of the chief talking points was the access to step-by-step directions, ala the "established guides".

How do you see directing someone to the established guides different from providing advice? Because critics of this website do not see a difference.

 

[chris8000]

Your posts are quite engaging, and I feel curious about how you arrived at this point of view.

With regard to the well-known case connected to this website, one of the chief talking points was the access to step-by-step directions, ala the "established guides".

How do you see directing someone to the established guides different from providing advice? Because critics of this website do not see a difference.

It's true, directing someone to one of the guides is practically the same as giving direct information in a reply. There is a superficial difference.

 

[Shakespear's Brother]

It's true, directing someone to one of the guides is practically the same as giving direct information in a reply. There is a superficial difference.

Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at. If someone believes that directing someone to the guides is okay but somehow answering a discrete question is problematic, they may want to reconsider why they believe this to be true. I feel like this is a form of confirmation bias.

 

[LegaliseIt!]

Hi @sleepy dog, @Shakespear's Brother, @chris8000 ,
Your positions are well stated.
I have come to see your points of view.
(Also, I ran out of vodka;) That last bit was a joke!
As a result of the hypocrisy of my sharing the resources, but not directly sharing advice, I am going to let others contribute to these threads.
PS. I hope that I can "borrow" your "I find your posts engaging" line, it helped open my mind (and shut my mouth:) Cheers!

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Now that was a real argument. A statement. A well argued counter statement with evidence. A change of opinion. Kudos. Why can't everyone discuss things like that.

 

[sleepy dog]

Now that was a real argument. A statement. A well argued counter statement with evidence. A change of opinion. Kudos. Why can't everyone discuss things like that.

It seems easy for some people, difficult for others. Discussion is my goal most of the time. But I seem to piss people off sometimes. I have tried very hard to teach myself how to write a certain way. Maybe I finally made some progress. Woo hoo.

 

[Jean4]

It's true, directing someone to one of the guides is practically the same as giving direct information in a reply. There is a superficial difference.

Actually it isn't in my opinion. Stan was the expert. No offense. I haven't met anyone with his knowledge.

It may be just me, but I prefer to get information from an expert... whether he is here to give it personally, it the guide he left all of us as his legacy.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/stans-guide-to-sn.27535/

 

[chris8000]

Actually it isn't in my opinion. Stan was the expert. No offense. I haven't met anyone with his knowledge.

It may be just me, but I prefer to get information from an expert... whether he is here to give it personally, it the guide he left all of us as his legacy.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/stans-guide-to-sn.27535/

I'm certainly not arguing against his expertise, I don't think any of us were.