Discussion Trying to get people to understand that restricting peaceful methods enforces further suffering. Help appreciated.

[lamy's sacred sleep]

TW: Suicide, gore, agony, generally bad stuff in the links.
Im serious, do not click the links if you are not comfortable with death.

I'm writing a blogpost on how restricting peaceful methods (e.g. sarcopod, nitrogen, nembutal) leads to further suffering not only for those who are catching the bus but also those who arrive upon them.
By posting this on SS, I hope to get feedback on what could be added or removed.
Just in case, I reread the rules for Sasu and I don't think I'm breaking any of them, but if the links are an issue I'd be happy to remove them.
Thank you for all the work you do mod team.
Below is the blogpost in question.

---

I'm suicidal.
I've thought about killing myself at school, but it'd traumatise my classmates, I'm not too sure about the height and I'd have to break a window.(I aint paying for that if I chicken out).
I've decided not to jump to my death. There are other ways to die.
I decided to see what my death could've looked like.
I learned that when people fall from a very high height that they might crush someone. More reasons not to jump to my death.

Weirdly enough, I didn't feel anything I think you're supposed to feel when watching others die.
I mostly felt anger, anger that people have to resort to such violent methods just to leave this cruel existence.
I wish that I could show videos like these to people like Bryan Caplan, and have him tell me that "there are so many cheap and easy ways to stop existing" or that "life is a good with free (or nearly free) disposal".

So much pointless violence and suffering and trauma because people feel a need to continually restrict peaceful methods of killing oneself.

 

[Eudaimonic]

You should read Sarah Perry's work if you have not already. She addresses Bryan Caplan's "arguments" about free disposal.

 

[lamy's sacred sleep]

You should read Sarah Perry's work if you have not already. She addresses Bryan Caplan's "arguments" about free disposal.

that's where i got the quotes from

im reading through it, it's a great work

 

[Eudaimonic]

that's where i got the quotes from

im reading through it, it's a great work

Ah, awesome! Check out her blog as well

 

[Eudaimonic]

@lamy's sacred sleep Pro-lifers might counter that these people could have been helped, and hence that their suffering and trauma could have been avoided.

The most salient counter to this counter is simply to highlight the permanence of suffering and/or to champion the sanctity of choice.

However, they might also argue that such restrictions result in less people committing suicide.

Remember: these people do not really care about reducing suffering - it's an afterthought to them, a beneficial consequence at most - their modus operandi is to do whatever maximizes the probability of a given person staying alive, even if they are in agony. Their calculus is first and foremost maximization of LIFE--of aliveness--at all costs. Granted, not all pro-lifers are this extreme, but many are.

A friend (who I'm not sure I'd necessarily characterize as a pro-lifer) said to me that if N were more widely available, it could lead to people being murdered with it. So, this is another response you might have to address. A similar argument could be made for nitrogen (and it leaves no trace if you remove the equipment). However, it does seem like there are some safeguards that could be put into place to mitigate the risk of this greatly.

Lastly, it might be worth reading @TAW122's posts and u/existentialgoof's (his blog is schopenhaueronmars).

 

[bananaolympus]

Yeah if you restrinct this methods people will try gruesome methods that can cause trauma my first attempt i jumped because i didn't knew of sn or have any other option

 

[lamy's sacred sleep]

@lamy's sacred sleep Pro-lifers might counter that these people could have been helped, and hence that their suffering and trauma could have been avoided.

The most salient counter to this counter is simply to highlight the permanence of suffering and/or to champion the sanctity of choice.

However, they might also argue that such restrictions result in less people committing suicide.

Remember: these people do not really care about reducing suffering - it's an afterthought to them, a beneficial consequence at most - their modus operandi is to do whatever maximizes the probability of a given person staying alive, even if they are in agony. Their calculus is first and foremost maximization of LIFE--of aliveness--at all costs. Granted, not all pro-lifers are this extreme, but many are.

A friend (who I'm not sure I'd necessarily characterize as a pro-lifer) said to me that if N were more widely available, it could lead to people being murdered with it. So, this is another response you might have to address. A similar argument could be made for nitrogen (and it leaves no trace if you remove the equipment). However, it does seem like there are some safeguards that could be put into place to mitigate the risk of this greatly.

Lastly, it might be worth reading @TAW122's posts and u/existentialgoof's (his blog is schopenhaueronmars).

love existentialgoof, his blog and twitter is awesome

i've never thought about how they don't care about suffernig before. it's honestly true in a lot of cases.
thanks for the advice