CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There are people with terminal illnesses that wish to pass on but are hindered by the fact that the rest of the world says they should live out until they are in complete suffering.
Sometimes we let people commit the slowest suicide right in front of our eyes with smoking, drugs, etc. We just have a problem with people dieing this second.
If one is living in pain, or does not enjoy living, it is the simplest and most permanent fix.
That does not address the reason they feel this way. But technically, if one does not enjoy living it takes a degree of self-delusion to continue living - which is less sane I think.
I'm for the right of the terminally ill to commit suicide in a safe and painless environment. As for depression though, I think it's healthier to have a bit of self-delusion, get some help and learn to enjoy life.
Suicide in many instances is not the result of some insanity.
As I stated, asking about the sanity of those suffering from suicidal tendencies is a very harsh way to word the question.
However, if you walk into a psychiatrist office and say that you are having suicidal thoughts, it will be considered mental instability, not a healthy state of mind.
Also, you implied no distinction between 'sane' and 'normal'. I defined sanity as a measure of mental health- yet it appears you defined sanity as relative to a normal base.
This is where I feel that we diverge.
It is perfectly normal to have influenza, you would agree? Does that make influenza a healthy state?
I argue that depression and suicidal thoughts are sicknesses, much like influenza. They are widespread throughout the population. They are normal. That does not, however, make them healthy states of mind or body.
It is perfectly normal to have influenza, you would agree? Does that make influenza a healthy state?
Not healthy, no.
I would argue though if two had incurable influenza, and both were to live their life in constant unrelenting misery. We call the one who does not commit suicide sane, and the one who does somehow mentally lacking.
My argument is that, in situations such as this - whether it's incurable cancer or mental disease - the one who accepts their fate and chooses oblivion over misery, is actually the saner of the two. Counter intuitive as that seems.
The questions is are those who wish to commit suicide sane. Some are not, but I don't believe all are insane and some may be more sane than the living. I guess "they can be" is a better tag than "yes".
Except there is no such thing as "incurable" cancer- it is only incurable at the time. Every day there are more and more studies showing progress towards a cure. Why, then, should people give up hope, when so much evidence dictates that they have a chance to live perfectly healthy lives? For instance, just in the past year:
Google scholar picked up over 17,300 search results concerning a cure for cancer.
So do not tell me that it makes logical sense to give up. Perhaps, if they feel life is not worth it, an alternative to suicide would be to participate in a risky treatment. That way there is a chance of surviving- and being cured, rather than simply giving up.
And I could not agree more about the semantics. Just as you state that "some can be sane", I feel that sanity vs. insanity is far too polarizing. I argue that those suffering from suicidal tendencies are mentally unstable, not 'insane'
1. Yes, there are incurable cancers, a lot of them. That one day someone may find a cure does not mean they are currently curable. A person's life only lasts so long regardless, most often not long enough to hang out for the cure. Cancer is also not the only terminal disease, it is also not the only painful disease that will not go away, in fact there are plenty of circumstances which are not a disease which may lead one to contemplate suicide, from paralysis to flesh-eating viruses. Cancer was was only an example.
2. I don't care if you call it insane, mentally unstable, or bat shit. It's the same thing. And a person still does not need to be or mentally challenged or whatever you want to call it to commit suicide. One can be quite sane and still commit suicide.
You imagining you know the mental capacity, reasons, and circumstance behind every suicide in the history of manking is ridiculous. This is not an argument that you can win.
I think people who just want the pain and suffering to stop are sane. We may classify suicidal thoughts as mental disorders, but most of us haven't experienced gone through what those people have.
It's the most sane act possible! There's no point to life, so the only sane thing to do is not to bother with it. The only reason to stay here inherently relies on emotional appeals, "am I happy?", if you are, then stay, why not. =/
No. it was not. it was a serious concern. I do not find suicide to be a matter easily brushed off. I feel that any person who is suffering from suicidal thoughts- you to the point of advocating suicide- is suffering.
So, if you truly feel that life is pointless and not worth living, see a psychiatrist.
You've totally missed the point of my post. The only reasons for living inherently rely on appeals to emotion. Emotions do not necessitate logic and in this case there is no logical reason to remain alive as there is no point to it. Therefore suicide is logical. If you personally happen to place logic on a higher pedestal than happiness (for whatever reason) then you will most likely commit suicide.
If YOU know of a purpose to life that doesn't appeal to emotions, feel free to let me know. ;)
"There's no point to life, so the only sane thing to do is not to bother with it."
This does sound to be advocating suicide, and with a rather depressed tone- regardless of your mention of "appeals to emotion"
-which is improper use of 'appeals' because an appeal is a persuasive device used by a speaker (an emotional appeal is specifically pathos). Perhaps you meant that the purpose of life is based in emotions- or maybe you do have life force giving you convincing arguments via manipulation of your emotions.
And
there is a purpose to life other than emotions. Self preservation is a survival instinct- not an emotion. it is the reason that only those pushed to the brink commit suicide, rather than everybody who is for any moment of time unhappy.
Also, logic does not dictate that death is anything- good, bad, ugly. Logic is a conjecture based upon known conditions- the inherent unknown nature of death is the reason people tend to feel uncomfortable around it. In order to make the logical conclusion that
"Life is bad
Death is not as bad
therefore death is better than life"
One must establish that death is not as bad. I personally admit that I know nothing with any degree of certainty except that I nothing with any degree of certainty!
For all I know, the final moments of life may be sweet release from the chains that bind me. Or it may be hell, seemingly stretched for infinity in my final moments as my body screams against me.
The fact of the matter is that nobody can "logically" deduce that death>life, nullifying your 'logical' argument.
"There's no point to life, so the only sane thing to do is not to bother with it."
This does sound to be advocating suicide, and with a rather depressed tone- regardless of your mention of "appeals to emotion"
This is a factual statement. It's not my fault if depresses you.
-which is improper use of 'appeals' because an appeal is a persuasive device used by a speaker (an emotional appeal is specifically pathos). Perhaps you meant that the purpose of life is based in emotions- or maybe you do have life force giving you convincing arguments via manipulation of your emotions.
If I say one should remain alive because life can make you happy then I am appealing to the emotion of happiness as a means to argue for remaining alive. Debunk fail. =/
there is a purpose to life other than emotions. Self preservation is a survival instinct- not an emotion. it is the reason that only those pushed to the brink commit suicide, rather than everybody who is for any moment of time unhappy.
"Self preservation" is a nice way of saying cowardice. If you've come to the conclusion that death is your only option, but you still haven't killed yourself, then either you are a coward or you still cling to the idea that you will be happy in the future. The later reason still appeals to emotions which is illogical as there is no none-tautological argument for happiness being better than sadness.
By no means must ones reason for staying alive be logical, it's perfectly alright to choose life just for the sake of living, but to claim this is logical is intellectually dishonest.
Also, logic does not dictate that death is anything- good, bad, ugly. Logic is a conjecture based upon known conditions- the inherent unknown nature of death is the reason people tend to feel uncomfortable around it. In order to make the logical conclusion that
"Life is bad
Death is not as bad
therefore death is better than life"
Not true. I can say there is no sadness in death as I am dead and not capable of feeling sadness, therefore I can create an emotional reason for killing myself (I won't be sad anymore). Sure, this too is illogical as this decision is based in emotions and not logic, though the point I was originally getting at is that since there is no objective purpose to life you have to stake in it, therefore no logical reason to be here.
One must establish that death is not as bad. I personally admit that I know nothing with any degree of certainty except that I nothing with any degree of certainty!
Also not true. You can be sure that you have consciousness. from there, you can be as unsure as you choose, but you cannot deny that you have consciousness. Otherwise, who is denying?
The fact of the matter is that nobody can "logically" deduce that death>life, nullifying your 'logical' argument.
It follows that what is neutral will fall between sadness and happiness. Therefore, not being sad (so long as you define sadness as bad) is better than being sad, making death a positive option in comparison to life. Though, this isn't a logical argument, but since your argument was a non-sequitur anyway it doesn't matter much. =/
"This is a factual statement. It's not my fault if depresses you"
a depressing tone is not one that invokes depression, it is one that sounds depressed.
"If I say one should remain alive because life can make you happy then I am appealing to the emotion of happiness as a means to argue for remaining alive"
Yes, right there, that is an appeal to emotion. When you say "one should remain alive because life can make you happy", it is that statement that makes an appeal. Simply stating "life appeals to emotions" is the equivalent of wearing a sign that states that you do not have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. At least you learned something.
"Debunk fail"
im sorry, but if I am trapped in the gripping vice of logic and reason it seems rather loose. Simply because you disagree with my argument does not mean that I am wrong. Perhaps you should consider using more than a single argument to disprove something which you truly do not fully understand.
I should like to see how much evidence you looked into before pulling that definition out of your ass.
Allow me to point out two quick phrases..."[suicide] too is illogical as this decision is based in emotions and not logic...no logical reason to be [alive]"
so, both suicide and life are emotional decisions? yet you spend half of your argument saying that suicide is logical?
a word of advice- stick to one argument, or at least arguments that are not mutually exclusive.
"I can say there is no sadness in death"
Yes. You are perfectly capable of saying that. But you have no knowledge if that is or is not true. To be frank, there is no way you could know.
"Also not true. You can be sure that you have consciousness. from there, you can be as unsure as you choose, but you cannot deny that you have consciousness. Otherwise, who is denying?"
Yes, Nietzsche, but I am not doubting everything. I am only saying that I have no degree of certainty concerning what happens after life. Try reading my argument, it really does help in not sounding like an idiot.
"It follows that what is neutral will fall between sadness and happiness. Therefore, not being sad (so long as you define sadness as bad) is better than being sad, making death a positive option in comparison to life"
prove to me that death is neutral. I have no degree of certainty as to what occurs after death.
"Though, [your argument] isn't a logical argument"
I could not agree more.
"but since your argument was a non-sequitur anyway it doesn't matter much"
a non-sequitur means you do not follow. What part of my line of reasoning was too much of a hurdle for you to jump?
the part where I said you do not know what happens after death?
or the part where I said that gives no frame of references for death compared to life?
Why do you insist on using terms such as "appeal" and "non sequitur" improperly? it does nothing to make your argument more convincing, and to those who do understand the definition of the word you simply appear childish.
a depressing tone is not one that invokes depression, it is one that sounds depressed.
What a foolish thing to say. If you viewed this statement as depressing, then clearly depression is exactly what it has invoked in you. Otherwise, how could you possibly see anything depressing in it?
I see nothing depressing in it, this idea of depression is coming only from you.
Yes, right there, that is an appeal to emotion. When you say "one should remain alive because life can make you happy", it is that statement that makes an appeal. Simply stating "life appeals to emotions" is the equivalent of wearing a sign that states that you do not have the slightest clue of what you are talking about. At least you learned something.
I very clearly stated that the only reasons to remain alive were appeals to emotions, I never ONCE said "life appeals to emotions", you're putting those words in my mouth (straw man). You're deliberately obfuscating the issue.
im sorry, but if I am trapped in the gripping vice of logic and reason it seems rather loose. Simply because you disagree with my argument does not mean that I am wrong. Perhaps you should consider using more than a single argument to disprove something which you truly do not fully understand.
You are wrong for the reasons above and the reasons in my last post. How many arguments I use to debunk one argument is totally irrelevant. One argument is enough to debunk one argument. It's a question of quality, not quantity.
I should like to see how much evidence you looked into before pulling that definition out of your ass.
Did you even read this? It's referring to self preservation as one would colloquially refer to "fight or flight". That is to say, it's talking about self preservation as a subconscious instinct which would, by definition, make this a response NOT based in logic. Hell, the very logic centers of your brain shut down when one enters into this state! Using this as an argument FOR a logical reason to remain alive is both fallacious and stupid. =/
Allow me to point out two quick phrases..."[suicide] too is illogical as this decision is based in emotions and not logic...no logical reason to be [alive]"
so, both suicide and life are emotional decisions? yet you spend half of your argument saying that suicide is logical?
Again, you misunderstand what I'm saying. Any act based not on logic is by definition an illogical act. So, if you decide to kill yourself for an emotional reason then you are killing yourself for a non-logical reason (illogical) reason. HOWEVER, if that suicide comes not from emotion, but from understanding that there is no logical motive to stay alive (which is what I was talking about in the first place =/) then suicide is a purely logical act. The only reasons to not kill yourself inherently rely on emotional appeals, which means there is no logical reason to remain alive, only emotional reasons. This is about the third time I've had to explain this.
"I can say there is no sadness in death"
Yes. You are perfectly capable of saying that. But you have no knowledge if that is or is not true. To be frank, there is no way you could know.
Excuse me, but YOU'RE the one putting forth a positive claim here. YOU are the one asserting that there could be sadness in death so it's your responsibility to put forth some evidence for this claim. Besides, it follows that there is no sadness after death since sadness is a emotional response, therefore a chemical response. If your body is dead then it is not capable of enacting the chemical reaction necessary to create the sensation of sadness, or any emotion for that matter. Unless you are suggesting that some part of us lives on after, but even then, since the physiology is not there even if this were true any "emotions" felt would be completely incomparable to human emotions. Not to mention YOU have no evidence to support such a claim. You must be desperate at this point, because you're throwing out such empty arguments.
"Also not true. You can be sure that you have consciousness. from there, you can be as unsure as you choose, but you cannot deny that you have consciousness. Otherwise, who is denying?"
Yes, Nietzsche, but I am not doubting everything. I am only saying that I have no degree of certainty concerning what happens after life. Try reading my argument, it really does help in not sounding like an idiot.
Insulting me shows that this argument of yours is (once again) rooted in emotions and not logic, which follows perfectly because you said "I personally admit that I know nothing with any degree of certainty", if this was only in regards to death you would have said "I personally admit that I know nothing of death with any degree of certainty". You made it separate from this idea, if you meant to connect it you would have which tells me this is an ex post facto argument designed solely to protect your fragile ego.
Yes, Nietzsche, but I am not doubting everything. I am only saying that I have no degree of certainty concerning what happens after life. Try reading my argument, it really does help in not sounding like an idiot.
"It follows that what is neutral will fall between sadness and happiness. Therefore, not being sad (so long as you define sadness as bad) is better than being sad, making death a positive option in comparison to life"
prove to me that death is neutral. I have no degree of certainty as to what occurs after death.
Basic same argument as above.
"but since your argument was a non-sequitur anyway it doesn't matter much"
a non-sequitur means you do not follow. What part of my line of reasoning was too much of a hurdle for you to jump?
the part where I said you do not know what happens after death?
A non-sequitur means you've made a non-applicable argument, not that you've made too good of an argument as you are so surreptitiously insinuating.
My argument was that there is no none emotional reason for remaining alive. Suggesting that there are/could be emotions after death doesn't negate that any reason for remaining alive relies on illigical premises nor does it stand antagonist to the claim that none emotional (logical) reasons for committing suicide are logical, it merely suggests that one can still be illogical after death which has nothing to do with my argument or this debate, making it a non-sequitur.
Why do you insist on using terms such as "appeal" and "non sequitur" improperly? it does nothing to make your argument more convincing, and to those who do understand the definition of the word you simply appear childish.
Why do you insist on (fallaciously) arguing the semantics of my arguments instead of diving in past such superficialities? It does nothing to make your argument more convincing, and to those who do understand the meanings of these terms you simply appear childish. ;)
a tone can strike me as depressing without depressing me. It does not make me feel depressed, but I recognize it as having a depressed tone of voice. I am capable of understanding emotion without inherently feeling it.
"The only reasons for living inherently rely on appeals to emotion"
reasons are not the same as appeals. No, I did not quote you word for word when I said "life appeals to emotions". I apologize for that, but the error is still there. Therefore, my argument was criticizing an actual point, as opposed to a straw-man.
"It's a question of quality, not quantity"
and unfortunately you had neither.
"Double debunk fail."
If I strike you as an individual who discredits and contradicts claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious, that is not my intent.
However, I do not believe that is the issue at hand.
"perhaps YOU should have read this as your argument"
"The only reasons for living inherently rely on appeals to emotion"
either createdebate misquoted you, or you did not realize which section I was referring to. Either way, you incorrectly referenced an appeal. Again, not the matter at hand.
"It's referring to self preservation as one would colloquially refer to "fight or flight""
fight or flight is one of many self-preservation instincts. I brought it up solely to suggest that survival is not cowardice, as you claimed, but rooted in physiological development.
A subconscious instinct- in fact, all aspects of the unconscious, are still logical. They simply do not appear so because they are- by definition- not conjectured consciously. The unconscious mind is capable of logic, which will then form into the conscious mind.
and that is one logical reason- which I believe violates the foundation of your argument, which is that
"there is no logical reason to remain alive"
Should my math serve me correctly, one>none. Were it needed I could find many such articles, each detailing other logical reasons that compel one to survive.
Perhaps now this argument will at least make sense, regardless of whether or not you agree, rather than strike you as "fallacious and stupid". However, where you choose to draw the line between "I disagree" and "You are dumb" is not up to me.
"This is about the third time I've had to explain this."
yes it is unfortunate that you cannot answer back my arguments, and instead resort to repeating yourself. Unfortunately it is not within my control to stop you from doing so.
"YOU are the one asserting that there could be sadness in death"
My assertion is that it is unknown if death is positive, negative, or neutral
Your assertion is that death is neutral.
I do not have to prove my lack of knowledge. You, however, are the one making a claim that death is neutral. Since you are the one making an assumption on post-mortem existence, you have the burden of proof.
"Unless you are suggesting that some part of us lives on after"
I simply assert that I do not know. Neither I nor any scientist or researcher has ever died and returned with a detailed list of what does or does not occur
Keep in mind that the experience of "death" may not truly exist after the brain has shut down, but in the brain's final moments before death.
one study discusses vivid mental sensation during near-death
However, I was referencing Nietzsche's nihilism which I believed to be relevant on the grounds of
1) we were discussing doubt
2) you are most definitely suggesting doctrine that negates meaningful aspects of life.
I apologize if that confused you. There are, however, more philosophers who argued doubt than just Descartes.
concerning my "non-sequitor"
I can outline my argument here- please tell me what aspects do not relate to my premise
there are some logical reasons to continue living (i.e. selfish gene, etc)
suicide is logical only if death is greater than life
death is an enigma, with no known aspects positive, negative, or neutral
therefore it is impossible to determine that suicide is logical
logic is absolute
therefore suicide is not logical
If, as you are insisting, I am making a hurdle that you do not follow, please point it out. What steps am I missing?
"Why do you insist on (fallaciously) arguing the semantics of my arguments instead of diving in past such superficialities?"
call me old fashioned, but I grow irate when people use rhetoric incorrectly. Note, however, that I pointed it out, but could not have perpetuated it on my own. Feel free to cease discussion, and I will follow suit. The points are unimportant, and I stated that they are not the matter at hand. So allow us to continue with what we were truly debating-
a tone can strike me as depressing without depressing me. It does not make me feel depressed, but I recognize it as having a depressed tone of voice. I am capable of understanding emotion without inherently feeling it.
Then where is this idea of depression coming from? Are there blocks of depression floating around? I never once thought about depression when typing this, so the only depression here must be coming from you. There is no "tone of voice" to text, so the only way to see an emotion in it is if YOU project it, which would mean there is depression in you, even if only in the sympathetic sense.
reasons are not the same as appeals. No, I did not quote you word for word when I said "life appeals to emotions". I apologize for that, but the error is still there. Therefore, my argument was criticizing an actual point, as opposed to a straw-man.
You're playing off semantics again. What difference is there between one who's argument for life appeals to emotions and one who's reason for staying alive appeals to emotions? Nothing really, the only difference I see is a reason doesn't become an argument until applied in a debate (or argument), but that's a rather irrelevant difference considering we are already debating.
"It's a question of quality, not quantity"
and unfortunately you had neither.
Empty assertion. The point still stands that how many arguments I use to debunk one argument is irrelevant.
either createdebate misquoted you, or you did not realize which section I was referring to. Either way, you incorrectly referenced an appeal. Again, not the matter at hand.
No argument here either... am I to debate assertions from this point on?
fight or flight is one of many self-preservation instincts. I brought it up solely to suggest that survival is not cowardice, as you claimed, but rooted in physiological development.
Irrelevant. Cowardice is cowardice whether chosen or automatic.
A subconscious instinct- in fact, all aspects of the unconscious, are still logical. They simply do not appear so because they are- by definition- not conjectured consciously. The unconscious mind is capable of logic, which will then form into the conscious mind.
Then YOU are using a strange definition of the word "logic". Logic is; a particular method of reasoning or argumentation. If something is done subconsciously then there is NO reasoning to it. It doesn't even register on the scale of logic.
here is that mistake, popping up again. Something makes an appeal, it cannot rely on appeals. It can rely on arguments, which can be based on appeals.
How does that make any sense? An argument (it) relies on an argument which intern bases on an appeal? I don't think you've fully thought this out. You're merely arguing semantics again. If my argument relies on an emotional appeal then for all intents and purposes it is the same as being "based" on the appeal as both infer that the argument is non existent without the appeal. You're merely obfuscating and twisting words to make yourself sound more correct.
evolution has pressured organisms to try and survive and reproduce. The goal of humans, according to their "selfish genes", is to stay alive.
You think evolution is logical? There is no end goal to biology, it simply exists because it exists. Life itself is tautological. There's no point to all this reproduction. Yes, you can say "logically, one should reproduce to ensure the next generation", but that only branches to the question "why does it matter if the next generation happens or not?", there is still no logical reason here.
yes it is unfortunate that you cannot answer back my arguments, and instead resort to repeating yourself. Unfortunately it is not within my control to stop you from doing so.
Not once have I made an assertion void of an argument, that's been YOUR department. Hell, this very argument of yours is an example of you making an assertion void of an argument. If you don't see any counter arguments in my posts then you are simply choosing to ignore them.
My assertion is that it is unknown if death is positive, negative, or neutral
Your assertion is that death is neutral.
I do not have to prove my lack of knowledge. You, however, are the one making a claim that death is neutral. Since you are the one making an assumption on post-mortem existence, you have the burden of proof.
There you go twisting words again. Look, I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that death is neutral. If you are to debunk this then you'll need some counter evidence supporting the idea of a non-neutral after life. This is how a debate works.
I simply assert that I do not know. Neither I nor any scientist or researcher has ever died and returned with a detailed list of what does or does not occur
Then your argument appeals to ignorance. Why are you even debating me when your entire argument is hollow? If you have no reason against my position then the only reason you have to still deny it is an egotistical one.
Keep in mind that the experience of "death" may not truly exist after the brain has shut down, but in the brain's final moments before death.
No, that would be dyING. Death is death. You are not alive when you're dead. =/
which, in conjunction, would allow the mind to experience (in theory) infinite time of extreme happiness, or sadness, in only moments before death.
If you feel these are empty arguments, then I fear that I must present them more clearly. I in no way feel backed into a corner.
Again, moments BEFORE death =/= death. You're merely twisting words again, not even well this time. Either you are an idiot for thinking death and not-death are the same thing (in a non-zen sense) or you think I am an idiot and I wouldn't catch this blatant contradiction on your argument.
'I think therefore I am' is from Descartes.
Exactly.
However, I was referencing Nietzsche's nihilism which I believed to be relevant on the grounds of
1) we were discussing doubt
2) you are most definitely suggesting doctrine that negates meaningful aspects of life.
I apologize if that confused you. There are, however, more philosophers who argued doubt than just Descartes.
Considering that the only significant part of my argument here was in reference to Descartes while calling me Nietzsche would best apply to virtually every single one of my arguments OTHER than this one, it's clear to me that this is another ex post facto argument designed to protect your ego.
concerning my "non-sequitor"
I can outline my argument here- please tell me what aspects do not relate to my premise
I explicitly outlined your non-sequitur in my last post, You have NO excuse for not knowing, yet you still post all these "possible" reasons as though I didn't spell it out for you, word for word.
If you really want to know, it's all there in black and white one fucking post up.
If, as you are insisting, I am making a hurdle that you do not follow, please point it out. What steps am I missing?
I absolutely did NOT insist this, you're putting words in my mouth again. How high of a pedestal you must place yourself on to think no one could possibly see your amateur slight of hand techniques. =/
call me old fashioned, but I grow irate when people use rhetoric incorrectly.
What does this have to do with being "old fashioned"? You're shallow attempt at asserting seniority is remedial and unimpressive.
Note, however, that I pointed it out, but could not have perpetuated it on my own. Feel free to cease discussion, and I will follow suit. The points are unimportant, and I stated that they are not the matter at hand. So allow us to continue with what we were truly debating-
is suicide logical?
You fool. YOU started debating ME. If this debate has gotten off topic then it can only be in response to your arguments. Everything I've said has been in direct reasons to things you've said while your arguments have been full of such gobbledygook as appeals to ignorance, semantics dissensions, ad-hock, direct contradictions, obfuscation, etc.
Looking back though, this debate really isn't all that off topic. I argued that suicide is logical because there is no logical reason to remain alive and you've gone about trying to establish a logical reason for remaining alive. This is where we currently are in the debate, which tells me you DO feel backed into a corner and are simply looking for a way out.
and who or what would I be sympathizing with? The only other person in this debate, besides me, would be you- and you proclaim no intent of depression in that statement.
"You're playing off semantics again"
regardless of how you used them, this is whole discussion is tiring me- so I will cease to argue it. If my arguments, and various sources, do not help you recognize your error then I feel there is no point discussing this point any more. Therefore, I will rest my case on this point- not because you used them correctly, but so that the debate can move on.
"Irrelevant. Cowardice is cowardice whether chosen or automatic."
It seems that you define cowardice as the aversion of pain. For instance, if you were to give a thug your money so he does not hurt you, you are being a coward.
In this instance, the pain of dying forces the coward to choose life.
By this same definition, however, suicide would be cowardice, since it is avoiding the pain of life by choosing death.
I would argue that it is sensibility- not cowardice- that stops people from immediately undergoing the brash- not courageous- act of suicide.
"Then YOU are using a strange definition of the word 'logic'"
I suppose it is possible that I have my definition of the word "logic" confused. That is, both Dr. Leonid I. Perlovsky and I have a 'strange' definition of the word logic.
I define logic as something with reason. For instance, I logically drink from a cup because it makes drinking easier.
Whereas it would be illogical to drink from a spoon because it cannot hold very much liquid. By choosing a cup over a spoon, I used logic.
I feel that for such a large claim- that the subconscious is intrinsically illogical- you should have some evidence.
by my definition of logic, evolution has reasoning- that which survives continues, that which does not survive does not continue. Therefore, all present life has been programmed to survive, simply by the 'rules' within evolution.
"There is no end goal to biology, it simply exists because it exists... there is no point to all this reproduction"
I agree that there is no end goal, but it exists because for a reason (and I am not referencing the answer to life, the universe, and everything- I already know that is 42). Life has a reason for existing, because any system of molecules that can reproduce (an organism) will, by definition, grow- whereas any system of molecules that cannot reproduce (anything else) will, by definition, not grow. Therefore, by its very nature, life must grow.
"Life itself is tautological"
I do not exactly understand what you mean by this statement.
Why are you claiming that life is true under any possible interpretation? Were it even a logical statement, it would appear to be against your argument. Perhaps you misused the term- what was the term that you meant?
"Not once have I made an assertion void of an argument"
1) "that's been YOUR department"
2)"Debunk fail. =/"
3)"Double debunk fail. =/"
4)"Lol, perhaps YOU should have read this as your argument so far has either been based on you making a mistake or you deliberately lying. =/"
5)"Why do you insist on (fallaciously) arguing the semantics of my arguments instead of diving in past such superficialities?"
By my count, 5>none.
Also, I did not even accuse you of "making an assertion void of an argument", I said you were repetitive- you yourself said "This is about the third time I've had to explain this". I was simply noting that, rather than answer my points, you resorted to repeating yourself. How you viewed that as me claiming your arguments were void, i do not know.
"I've clearly outlined my reasons for believing that death is neutral"
you made the argument that:
"I can say there is no sadness in death as I am dead and not capable of feeling sadness"
which is no proof at all.
it is only after that 'proof' that you mentioned the logical steps of:
sadness is a emotional response
emotional responses are chemical response
therefore sadness is a chemical response
If your body is dead then it is not capable of enacting chemical responses
therefore emotions cease after death
to which I say that this may be the case to the observer. However, the consciousness at the time preceding death could feel infinite- making the person who committed suicide feel sadness, or joy, for an infinite period of time. Yes, it is all an illusion- just like any other emotions.
"No, that would be dyING. Death is death. You are not alive when you're dead"
but committing suicide is dyING. You cannot commit suicide when you're dead.
"Then your argument appeals to ignorance."
Yes. Since I do not know what happens after a person commits suicide, I do not claim to know.
"Why are you even debating me when your entire argument is hollow?"
If you claim that my argument is hollow, then how have I been citing points, which in a hollow argument would not exist?
"If you have no reason against my position then the only reason you have to still deny it is an egotistical one."
my main points that I have are:
1) you do not know with any degree of certainty that in the moments between suicide and death there is not a seeming infinite period of emotion. I gave arguments suggesting its plausibility
2) I suggested that there is a reason for life to continue
so, no, this is not an "egotistical point"
"Again, moments BEFORE death =/= death"
As I said earlier, this topic as about suicide. Suicide occurs before death. The resulting effects of suicide include moments before death.
"this is another ex post facto argument designed to protect your ego"
I will admit that I had my philosophers confused.
"'why does it matter if the next generation happens or not?', there is still no logical reason here"
if life is growing, then the next generation is inherently necessary for all living organisms. If there is a reason for life in the first place- that is another argument entirely- but since suicidal people are indeed alive, and life exists to perpetuate itself and reproduce, then suicidal people, too, should be compelled to perpetuate themselves and reproduce. I do not argue a grand purpose to life. I argue that, within the scope of living organisms, there is a general ultimate goal.
I explicitly outlined your non-sequitur in my last post, You have NO excuse for not knowing, yet you still post all these "possible" reasons as though I didn't spell it out for you, word for word.
"Suggesting that there are/could be emotions after death doesn't negate that any reason for remaining alive relies on illigical premises nor does it stand antagonist to the claim that none emotional (logical) reasons for committing suicide are logical, it merely suggests that one can still be illogical after death which has nothing to do with my argument or this debate, making it a non-sequitur"
allow me to state your argument, as I see it.
Life is meaningless
The only reason to stay alive is because of emotions
Life has sadness
Death has no sadness
therefore death is a better alternative than life.
I argued that
There is some purpose for life
therefore the only reason to stay alive is not for emotion
I agree that life has sadness
I state that in between committing suicide and dying one's consciousness could feel an indefinite period of emotion before actually succumbing to death
Therefore it is uncertain if death is a better alternative than life
Hopefully that clears up any confusion about whether or not my arguments relate to yours.
"You fool. YOU started debating ME. If this debate has gotten off topic then it can only be in response to your arguments."
Yes. It was in response to my arguments. I did not, however, perpetuate them on my own. In this argument I stated that this was a moot point and that I would cease arguing it. You, too, could have done that at any time. The fact that you continuously argued these points means that their perpetuation is not entirely my own fault.
"you DO feel backed into a corner and are simply looking for a way out"
I have my arguments laid down. I agreed to cease nit-picking at your use of rhetoric devices. And yet still arguments remain.
However, being backed into a corner often causes a person to resort to name-calling
"Social Learning Theory of Aggression"
Albert Bandura
if we take a look back at the debate
My name calling
"Nietzsche"-in reference to your philosophical alignment
"childish"- in reference to you insisting to use words incorrectly (not that I am arguing it anymore)
Your name calling
"debunk fail"
"intellectually dishonest"
"Obfuscat[ing]"
"double debunk fail"
"fallacious"
"stupid"
"fragile ego"
"fallaciously"
"childish"
"that's been YOUR department"
"egotistical"
"you are an idiot"
"How high of a pedestal you must place yourself on"
"amateur"
"shalloiw"
"remedial"
"unimpressive"
"fool"
"Obfuscat[ing]"
So, either you naturally have a tendency to insult people- in which case I please ask that you try to restrain yourself
or that you are backed into a corner- in which case I would ask you not only try to restrain yourself but also cease arguing.
To be honest, I am not enjoying this excessive amount of abuse that I am taking, and if you cannot find it within yourself to play nicely without verbal attacks then I can simply debate on another thread.
To be honest, I am not enjoying this excessive amount of abuse that I am taking, and if you cannot find it within yourself to play nicely without verbal attacks then I can simply debate on another thread.
You can't take offense to something if you don't find it true, even partially. For example, you called me childish. Had you not typed it out above I would have completely forgotten you said that and it would never again cross my mind, this is because I don't see myself as childish, so I brushed it aside and went into your argument. When you called me childish. Had you not typed it out above I would have completely forgotten you said that and it would never again cross my mind, this is because I don't see myself as childish, so I brushed it aside and went into your argument. When you called me Nietzsche, I responded to it's factual inaccuracy, not its intent.
Seeing as you have taken offense to such a ridiculous amount of things (I mean, counting fallacious TWICE just because one ended in "ly"? Come on. =/) It tells me you put far too much of your self worth into things unrelated to your self worth.
I tried to get the debate back on track, in order to focus on the debate at hand-and then I am a cop out.
Perhaps you've forgotten, but YOU attacked ME based on semantics. Now you are backing down from this attack because I've successfully shown that I've made no error in my use of these terms and you've failed to show that I have, so you cop out.
You are yet to answer any of my arguments, you simply argue them as null and void.
How shameless you are to so blatantly LIE right to me. I've specifically gone over each and every single one of your points in my last four posts. I've left out a few redundant arguments of yours from time to time, but since they are in fact redundant you'd be a fool to complain about it.
Also, who the fuck are you to complain that I'VE missed arguments since YOU totally ignored 3/4 of MY response? You couldn't have missed them, there's THREE of them right below the one you just responded to.
And at every turn you insult me- and not everything that is insulting is true. I do not know where you came up with such a ridiculous statement.
Alright, here's your list of trivialities you've taken such offense to.
"debunk fail"
1. This isn't an attack on your character at all, so it isn't even an insult.
2. You legitimately failed to debunk my argument, thus it's a debunk fail by definition.
"intellectually dishonest"
1. Again, not an insult but rather an observation of your debating technique.
2. You've claimed that life is logical while your arguments follow in no such manner, making this claim intellectually dishonest.
"Obfuscat[ing]"
1. again, not an insult. I don't even know how you could think this was an insult...
2. You've deliberately twisted my words to sound morel like what you want them to sound like. This IS obfuscation.
"double debunk fail"
1. Basically the same as the first time.
"fallacious"
1. I'm not saying your character is fallacious, so this isn't an insult by definition... nothing else really needs to be said here.
"stupid"
1. This one perhaps is a legit insult, but make no mistake, I wasn't saying it to hurt your feelings. I just honestly think you're stupid.
"fragile ego"
1. An ego is by definition fragile, otherwise it wouldn't need protecting. This is more of a redundancy than an insult, but since you didn't seem to be aware of this I suppose it was needed after all.
"fallaciously"
1... really? Reaaaaaaly protazoa? Grow up.
"childish"
1. Given that you've made such a stretch to count "fallacious" as an insult TWICE when it wasn't an insult EITHER time, I'd say calling you childish is a rather generous term.
"that's been YOUR department"
1. It has. The argument I'm responding to right now is an example of this.
"egotistical"
1... yeah. =/
"you are an idiot"
1. Can you really blame me for thinking you are an idiot when you argue like this? I would consider myself an idiot for saying the things you've said, so to me you are a childish idiot.
"How high of a pedestal you must place yourself on"
1. This isn't even an insult.
"amateur"
1. A competent debater would be more subtle with his obfuscation. You probably weren't even fully aware you were doing it, so you're an amateur at best.
"shallow"
1.You opened up this debate with semantic dissensions. You're a shallow debater, get over it.
"remedial"
"unimpressive"
1. Basically the same reason I called you an amateur. If you're going to try to win with such underhanded tactics as trying to establish seniority, it helps to not go at it like a neanderthal tackling a deer. You're much less transparent that way.
"fool"
1. a fool is one who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding. Since you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what logic is, you re a fool in a very factual sense.
"Obfuscat[ing]"
1. Oh fuck off.
There you go, each one broken down an dissected. When controlled for redundancy and ACTUAL insults, I've insulted you about 4 times, and that's stretching it considerably.
If you are logical, you will kill yourself and end this argument.
If you are not logical, then I will have won this debate.
Do as you please
This is why I call you a fool. I addressed this EXACT argument in my VERY FIRST post here. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you bring such hollow arguments to the table?
I guess that means you are still in the illogical state of living.
I am putting the 'cop-out' aside. Obviously you are unfamiliar with kicking an argument.
"How shameless you are to so blatantly LIE right to me"
I did what now?
" I've specifically gone over each and every single one of your points in my last four posts"
no, you simply argued them null and void without any sort of argument attached
"I've left out a few redundant arguments of yours from time to time, but since they are in fact redundant you'd be a fool to complain about it."
again with the insults
"Also, who the fuck are you to complain that I'VE missed arguments since YOU totally ignored 3/4 of MY response?"
that was not what I was talking about in the first place. I said you dispel my points without arguments, evidence, or logic. On a separate, this is a perfect example of you claiming to have disproved my argument without actually doing so!
I do feel the need to say that my arguments are in no way hollow- and no matter how many times you say that, because you could repeat this phrase a million times, and while you still lack evidence I am in no way inclined to agree.
I stated that the state of consciousness after death is unknown, and gave a very reasonable explanation of how the consciousness may perceive infinity even in a few moments in between dying and death. I had sources from medical journals.
How did you respond? you simply that we were discussing death, not dying.
That is simply not true. We were discussing suicide.
you also said that my sources were "unimpressive".
What is a better authority than NCBI? Would you be impressed if I brought down G-d himself to tell you that the conscious time frame is detached from that of the real world? Because obviously PhD doctroates of psychology are not enough.
And I did not begin this with a criticism. I was actually worried about your well being. Because you were advocating suicide.
Through out the debate, you have done little more than sound like an illogical, angry (possibly depressed) person. Either that or an insulting prick with no legitimate arguments. my goodness,
"I just honestly think you're stupid"-ok that makes everything better
"so to me you are a childish idiot."
"you're an amateur at best."-which is actually not factual
"You're a shallow debater"-also, not factual
" you re a fool in a very factual sense"- not only an opinion, but there is resounding evidence against it.
And you claim that I am an incompetent debater? Resorting to personal attacks? really?
I do not need any sort of feedback from you.
I have my own national forensics league CX debate metals
I scored a 2400 on the SAT
I am making solid A's in 7 AP classes, and a college course.
what criteria do you have that suggests that I am a poor debater, or an idiot, besides the fact that I disagree with you?
Lastly, you seem to have an an inability to respond with anything other than a claim from thin air (i.e. that you have successfully shown no error, though you have no evidence in the face of my own), insults (stupid, incompetent, shallow, fool), and lies (see insults).
do I sound like a blathering idiot to you?
The only reason that I would consider myself an idiot at the moment is simply because I continue to argue logic with a hypocritical, cynical, excuse for a debater.
My arguments are not flawless, I will admit. It would appear that you can do nothing more than insult me, and blindly disregard my arguments as "unimpressive" rather than actually debate against them.
even this last one- rather actually argue the conundrum in which you placed yourself it, you simply call it a "hollow argument"
you addressed it by saying that it is ok to value emotions.
that does not make it logical.
so no- you did not address it.
By your definition arguments, suicide is logical
and that anything that is not logical is illogical
you, by the looks of it, decided not to commit suicide
which means you did not do something logical (by your standards)
which means that you are illogical
which means that your arguments do not hold any value, as they come from an illogical source.
Rather than simply saying you already argued it- try actually arguing it. I find that it helps in a debate.
And I kindly ask that you stop insulting me. Given your track record, that would probably mean that you should just stop posting. I give you fair warning- if you insult me one more time I will report you.
I guess that means you are still in the illogical state of living.
You'll notice I also wasn't on these last two days.
I am putting the 'cop-out' aside. Obviously you are unfamiliar with kicking an argument.
A cop out is a form of kicking an argument.
I did what now?
...Why did you respond to this individually when you were planning on going into the rest of it anyway?
no, you simply argued them null and void without any sort of argument attached
No surprise you'd make such an assertion with no evidence. I wrote 4 posts to you going over point by point everything you said in excruciating detail. You're simply choosing to ignore it. It's really the internet equivalent of covering your ears and going "lalala lalala lalala". =/
again with the insults
Have you no appreciation for context? I said it would be foolish to complain about leaving out your redundant arguments. Are you complaining about that or aren't you?
that was not what I was talking about in the first place. I said you dispel my points without arguments, evidence, or logic. On a separate, this is a perfect example of you claiming to have disproved my argument without actually doing so!
Ignoring an argument in entirety is an example of not using arguments, evidence or logic... I feel like this is obvious.
I do feel the need to say that my arguments are in no way hollow- and no matter how many times you say that, because you could repeat this phrase a million times, and while you still lack evidence I am in no way inclined to agree.
The hollowness of your arguments is apparent with or without your agreement. You argue semantics and non-sequiturs over context and logic. Then you have the nerve to complain that the debate is off topic. =/
I stated that the state of consciousness after death is unknown, and gave a very reasonable explanation of how the consciousness may perceive infinity even in a few moments in between dying and death. I had sources from medical journals.
You've given no argument, you've merely asserted it as a possibility. You linked a pdf that suggests vivid mental sensation during near death, but in no way is evidence for an infinity of sadness right before you die.
Besides, this has nothing to do with the debate either. Even if what you say is true, it doesn't suggest a logical purpose for life. it's yet another non-sequitur.
How did you respond? you simply that we were discussing death, not dying.
Because we WERE in fact discussing death, NOT dying. I'm almost embarrassed for you at this point. If you make the claim that there may be sadness after death then go about supporting this claim with yet another theory having to do with dying (not death), you look foolish.
That is simply not true. We were discussing suicide.
To which you suggested that there may be emotions after death... then backed up this claim by suggesting there may be a perceived infinite amount of time BEFORE death. Neither of which suggests a logical reason to stay alive.
you also said that my sources were "unimpressive".
You provided links to books that just not going to buy. I'm pretty sure one of them didn't even lead to a specific book (miss link?). The rest were irrelevant (e.g. the link about survival instinct). Actually, that one WAS technically relevant, it just didn't suggest a logical reason to stay alive, so it was irrelevant to your argument, but it helped mine.
And I did not begin this with a criticism. I was actually worried about your well being. Because you were advocating suicide.
No, I said suicide was logical. Know the difference between an "is" and an "ought". Just because suicide IS logical doesn't necessarily mean one OUGHT to do it. Going to the moon is illogical, we did it anyway.
"I just honestly think you're stupid"-ok that makes everything better
I wasn't trying to make you feel better, you wanted an explanation I gave you one. deal with it.
"you're an amateur at best."-which is actually not factual
Relative to the persons I usually debate, yes it is very factual. The only other persons I've debated on this site whom uses the tactic of obfuscation so exorbitantly is aveskde and quite frankly, he is better at it than you.
"You're a shallow debater"-also, not factual
Most of your argument have derived from non-sequiturs, semantics and obfuscation. To me, this is much more shallow than debating in context. Sure, you've put forth an effort to do this too, but your arguments didn't follow.
" you re a fool in a very factual sense"- not only an opinion, but there is resounding evidence against it.
I find you to be a fool in a literal sense as the dictionary defines the word.
And you claim that I am an incompetent debater? Resorting to personal attacks? really?
Actually, as I pointed out in my last post very little of the "insults" you listed were even insults.
I have my own national forensics league CX debate metals
I scored a 2400 on the SAT
I am making solid A's in 7 AP classes, and a college course.
I don't care.
what criteria do you have that suggests that I am a poor debater, or an idiot, besides the fact that I disagree with you?
Don't think that just because I call you an idiot that I think you're an idiot 24/7. When I say you're being a fool, or something, I'm saying at the time you wrote this you were a fool. As of right now you have no solid argument suggesting a logical reason to stay alive. Since you've been defending irrelevant arguments and I see no reason to do this, I think you're being foolish.
Lastly, you seem to have an an inability to respond with anything other than a claim from thin air (i.e. that you have successfully shown no error, though you have no evidence in the face of my own), insults (stupid, incompetent, shallow, fool), and lies (see insults).
I've defended my use of terms and made these claims after you called of your attack on them. Therefore, I've succeeded in showing there was no error. If there was, you could have simply quoted a dictionary and that would be the end of it, but I explained to you how they were in fact correct and you did nothing after that to show I was wrong.
The only reason that I would consider myself an idiot at the moment is simply because I continue to argue logic with a hypocritical, cynical, excuse for a debater.
Actually, you haven't yet shown a logical reason for life. Also, this claim of my hypocrisy is a rather new development. Under what do you base this claim?
My arguments are not flawless, I will admit. It would appear that you can do nothing more than insult me, and blindly disregard my arguments as "unimpressive" rather than actually debate against them.
Actually, I've gone into why I find your arguments unimpressive explicitly at this point.
you addressed it by saying that it is ok to value emotions.
that does not make it logical.
so no- you did not address it.
By your definition arguments, suicide is logical
and that anything that is not logical is illogical
you, by the looks of it, decided not to commit suicide
which means you did not do something logical (by your standards)
which means that you are illogical
which means that your arguments do not hold any value, as they come from an illogical source.
Wrong. One illogical choice doesn't make you illogical in your entirety. Sometimes I go party instead of studying. Is this logical? Probably not, but that doesn't make everything I do from that point forward illogical. That doesn't follow at all.
Rather than simply saying you already argued it- try actually arguing it. I find that it helps in a debate.
You find it HELPS in a debate to spin your tires because your opponent can't keep track of the debates progress??
Okay there...
And I kindly ask that you stop insulting me. Given your track record, that would probably mean that you should just stop posting. I give you fair warning- if you insult me one more time I will report you.
Ooooo. You'll "report" me. I'm so scared. Not really.
Given how liberally you take offense to things, I'd say it's impossible to not get "reported", so I see no reason to censor myself. I don't suppress how I feel. If I think you're an idiot, I'll call you an idiot.
The only reason to stay alive is because of emotions
Life has sadness
Death has no sadness
therefore death is a better alternative than life.
Pretty good, up until the last part. I argue that death is the logical alternative to life. "Better" is an inherently subjective quality.
Yes. It was in response to my arguments. I did not, however, perpetuate them on my own. In this argument I stated that this was a moot point and that I would cease arguing it. You, too, could have done that at any time. The fact that you continuously argued these points means that their perpetuation is not entirely my own fault.
Make no mistake, I take full responsibility for the things I say. HOWEVER I take to fault in defending my use of the words you took issue with. Do you not find it reasonable to do so? Can you say you wouldn't defend your arguments?
My name calling
"Nietzsche"-in reference to your philosophical alignment
"childish"- in reference to you insisting to use words incorrectly (not that I am arguing it anymore)
Your name calling
"debunk fail"
"intellectually dishonest"
"Obfuscat[ing]"
"double debunk fail"
"fallacious"
"stupid"
"fragile ego"
"fallaciously"
"childish"
"that's been YOUR department"
"egotistical"
"you are an idiot"
"How high of a pedestal you must place yourself on"
"amateur"
"shalloiw"
"remedial"
"unimpressive"
"fool"
"Obfuscat[ing]"
So, either you naturally have a tendency to insult people- in which case I please ask that you try to restrain yourself
or that you are backed into a corner- in which case I would ask you not only try to restrain yourself but also cease arguing.
Reading over these, very few of them can even be said to be insults. Obfuscating? Really? And even the ones that I can understand being seen as insults, I meant them in a purely factual manner. I can go into each one if you want. You've said things that I would consider myself foolish for saying, therefore I think your a fool for having said them. It's not as though I think you'll admit to being wrong because I call you a "fool" or something. =p
And before you say "well, then I too only insulted you in a factual manner", no you didn't.
You called me Nietzsche based on a inaccurate (therefore not factual) philosophical alignment. And you called me childish based on my alleged misuse of certain terms. Since children have relatively small vocabularies it is unlikely that they will use terms improperly (more likely they will make up words). Given your allegation, a factual insult would have to be something more along the lines of "Ignoramus".
Also, you've already admitted to these being typed simply to be insulting.
"I can say there is no sadness in death as I am dead and not capable of feeling sadness"
which is no proof at all.
You're once again deliberately getting my position wrong. You've completely ignored the part about how sadness is a chemical reaction and if you are dead this reaction cannot happen. If you are to argue that there is sadness after death then it is now up to YOU to either prove this reaction still happens after death, or that some part of us carries of after death that is still somehow capable of feeling sadness.
it is only after that 'proof' that you mentioned the logical steps of:
sadness is a emotional response
emotional responses are chemical response
therefore sadness is a chemical response
If your body is dead then it is not capable of enacting chemical responses
therefore emotions cease after death
And now here you address my evidence, which makes your complaining over my thesis pointless. =/
to which I say that this may be the case to the observer. However, the consciousness at the time preceding death could feel infinite- making the person who committed suicide feel sadness, or joy, for an infinite period of time. Yes, it is all an illusion- just like any other emotions.
Regardless of how long it feels like you're alive before you die, you're not dead until you're dead. End of debate.
Besides, not only can you NOT prove this, but this argument is totally asanine as most persons who commit suicide do so in an instant manner. Also, this argument fails to show suicide is logical as the length of time it feels like before you die doesn't in any way suggest an objective purpose to life rooted in logic.
but committing suicide is dyING. You cannot commit suicide when you're dead.
Unless this persons commits suicide through a long and painful means like infecting themselves with cancer, it doesn't really matter. Sure, you're "dying" from the point the bullet penetrates your temple to the time it leaves the side of your head, but considering this process takes mere hundredths of a second the time spent dying is rather insignificant. Your brain wouldn't even have time to arbitrarily slow down your perception of time to near-infinite. =/
If you claim that my argument is hollow, then how have I been citing points, which in a hollow argument would not exist?
Scientists spend their whole careers talking about the idea of nothingness. They can talk for hours about nothingness but at the end of that day, their just talking about nothing.
You could literally spend the rest of your natural life arguing your appeal to ignorance, but at the end of the day, all you're doing is moving the goalpost and hiding in the unknown/able. It doesn't matter how many times/ways you say it, a rose by any
other name is still a rose.
1) you do not know with any degree of certainty that in the moments between suicide and death there is not a seeming infinite period of emotion. I gave arguments suggesting its plausibility
2) I suggested that there is a reason for life to continue
so, no, this is not an "egotistical point"
1) YOU do not know with any degree of certainty that your brain, for some reason, fucks with your perception of time so that you can feel miserable for all eternity. You haven't even posted a real argument for this, you've just asserted it and posted some links (which were rather unimpressive upon review). I've already posted a counter argument that you have yet to debunk, so as it stand this point is moot until proven true (that's kinda how science works).
2) Your reason appeals to emotion, not logic, which is what this debate is about, so this point is also moot.
Which means we are once again left with reason 3. Ego.
if life is growing, then the next generation is inherently necessary for all living organisms. If there is a reason for life in the first place- that is another argument entirely- but since suicidal people are indeed alive, and life exists to perpetuate itself and reproduce, then suicidal people, too, should be compelled to perpetuate themselves and reproduce. I do not argue a grand purpose to life. I argue that, within the scope of living organisms, there is a general ultimate goal.
That's great, the problem then is, why should we care? If the next generation doesn't happen then it doesn't happen. There's no problem, so why care?
and who or what would I be sympathizing with? The only other person in this debate, besides me, would be you- and you proclaim no intent of depression in that statement.
That's what I'm saying. I don't see anything depressing in it, but YOU think I do.
regardless of how you used them, this is whole discussion is tiring me- so I will cease to argue it. If my arguments, and various sources, do not help you recognize your error then I feel there is no point discussing this point any more. Therefore, I will rest my case on this point- not because you used them correctly, but so that the debate can move on.
That's funny, I didn't realize "tiring" was spelled c.o.p.o.u.t.
By this same definition, however, suicide would be cowardice, since it is avoiding the pain of life by choosing death.
Again,back to my original post, there is no point to life so there's no logical reason to not kill yourself. In this case, suicide would be an act of logic, not an act of cowardice. If you're happy with your life then fuck logic, happiness is reason enough, even if it is an illogical one.
I suppose it is possible that I have my definition of the word "logic" confused. That is, both Dr. Leonid I. Perlovsky and I have a 'strange' definition of the word logic.
If the logic centers of your brain have shut down but you use a cup anyway, then it is just a coincidence. It can't be because you logically figured a cup would be better since the very parts of your brain dedicated to logic are shut down. This is what I mean when I say you have to look past the superficial. You've got to look at both the action and the intent.
In this case, survival instinct is just a spill over. It's not logical to have a survival instinct (since there's no logical reason to care if you survive). It only exists because it just so happens animals that automatically escape dangerous situations are more likely to pass on their genes.
by my definition of logic, evolution has reasoning- that which survives continues, that which does not survive does not continue. Therefore, all present life has been programmed to survive, simply by the 'rules' within evolution.
same as above.
I do not exactly understand what you mean by this statement.
Why are you claiming that life is true under any possible interpretation? Were it even a logical statement, it would appear to be against your argument. Perhaps you misused the term- what was the term that you meant?
Life is not a static thing, it's constantly changing. It would be more accurate to say "lifing itself is tautological", but since that isn't a word I had to say just "life". Consider the statement more along the lines of "the process of life it tautological". That is to say, life only exists because life exists. Life doesn't exist for a purpose, life exists just because that's how things happened. There's no logic behind it, it just is.
1) "that's been YOUR department"
2)"Debunk fail. =/"
3)"Double debunk fail. =/"
4)"Lol, perhaps YOU should have read this as your argument so far has either been based on you making a mistake or you deliberately lying. =/"
5)"Why do you insist on (fallaciously) arguing the semantics of my arguments instead of diving in past such superficialities?"
By my count, 5>none.
Every single one of these claims were proceeded by a very explicit argument and premise. I really don't know what else to say here, your just point blank wrong. =/
Also, I did not even accuse you of "making an assertion void of an argument", I said you were repetitive- you yourself said "This is about the third time I've had to explain this". I was simply noting that, rather than answer my points, you resorted to repeating yourself. How you viewed that as me claiming your arguments were void, i do not know.
Your exact quote was: "yes it is unfortunate that you cannot answer back my arguments, and instead resort to repeating yourself. Unfortunately it is not within my control to stop you from doing so."
Saying that I am unable to address your arguments and substitute by repeating my old ones suggests that my arguments are void of merit while just the opposite is true. You've been making several assertions that are un-backed by any argument as well as making arguments already debunked by the very arguments you're responding to.
Depression is a leading cause of suicide not insanity.Sometimes people find themselves in such a desperate situation that life doesn't seem worth living and is too painful...
Suicide is the most violent externalization of anger inflicted upon one's own self.
Some people commit murder or commit heinous crimes due to anger and frustration, while others turn the anger around and kill themselves to escape a painful "situation".
People who "think" about committing suicide are sane, because everyone has already thought about it. The thin line is when suicide becomes a daily thought, and the idea seems like a great solution for escaping the "perceived" pains of your life.
In my opinion suicide is based in fear. When the thought of dying seems easier than facing the stresses, pains, guilt, shame, and/or anxieties of having to breath another day.
They can be perfectly sane. It's actually a bit abnormal not to have depression. It just depends on their coping mechanisms, thought process, and difficulties. It's not a mental disorder. It's just they fell down and stayed down. Everyone has their breaking points.
First, allow me to compliment your picture. It is rather awesome.
Concerning the topic:
As I stated, asking about the sanity of those suffering from suicidal tendencies is a very harsh way to word the question. However, if you walk into a psychiatrist office and say that you are having suicidal thoughts, it will be considered mental instability, not a healthy state of mind.
Also, you implied no distinction between 'sane' and 'normal'. I defined sanity as a measure of mental health- yet it appears you defined sanity as relative to a normal base.
This is where I feel that we diverge.
It is perfectly normal to have influenza, you would agree? Does that make influenza a healthy state?
I argue that depression and suicidal thoughts are sicknesses, much like influenza. They are widespread throughout the population. They are normal. That does not, however, make them healthy states of mind or body.
A perfectly sane person may commit suicide in an absurd world. Absurdity is haunting, all encompassing, and randomly pounces. Its a rush, which inverts what we commonly consider sanity into a demon of unparalleled proportions.
Also, A perfectly sane person does not necessarily fear death, and even if one did one could still find suicide preferable to other options and rationally choose it.
yes people are just sad and overwhelmed. it doesn't make you insane because you're sad. everyone goes through said times and im sure mostly everyone will think about suicide one day in their life
As I stated, asking about the sanity of those suffering from suicidal tendencies is a very harsh way to word the question. However, if you walk into a psychiatrist office and say that you are having suicidal thoughts, it will be considered mental instability, not a healthy state of mind.
Also, you implied no distinction between 'sane' and 'normal'. I defined sanity as a measure of mental health- yet it appears you defined sanity as relative to a normal base.
This is where I feel that we diverge.
It is perfectly normal to have influenza, you would agree? Does that make influenza a healthy state?
I argue that depression and suicidal thoughts are sicknesses, much like influenza. They are widespread throughout the population. They are normal. That does not, however, make them healthy states of mind or body.
which makes them insane. they loose their goal in life and when they do so, they hate themselves and feel worthless(often known as depression ), which eventually leads to insanity.
everyone goes through said times
but not all of them come out of it.
everyone will think about suicide one day in their life
no that's not true. not everyone thinks of suicide. they believe that they are now finished with their goal in life and can stop life their. but that's not suicide.
One of my friends committed suicide, I thought he was perfectly sane and a happy person. He died less than a month ago and I thought he had no reason to die so unless I'm insane as well, suicidal people can be sane.
No offense, but you're probably insane. Would you want to die when you have a, say filming for a movie soon? Everyone has a reason they're on this earth. Plus, the suicidal people(a.k.a. ding dong dorks) only think about themselves. My life is about useless around now, yet I'm still going along.
Some people who commit suicide are sane. There are different things that can cause a sane person to commit suicide such as family problems, business problems etc. A doctor can evaluate a person and find no problems with that person's mental health. And if you ask me why, it is because that person is a perfectly fine person. Suicide is however a mental illness if the person has mental problems. Many educated people who commit suicides are perfectly sane but is because they are not fearful of death and or they might be in liquidation of their business or bankruptcy.
Not all people who commit suicide in insane. And again i strongly disbelieve that all people who commit suicide are insane because some who does it are insane.
Dear Protazoa, the reason i am on this side is because you are an idiot. You get your little der der im a smartass winkey face going and your going to try to tell everyone that this is a scientifical situation and i should open a science textbook to read about a bunch of theories psycologists are at cavemen level they know how to manipulate and they think they know how minds work but everyone has different brain wave pattern so theres no way they can prove anything. so shut up and hop on this side and stop being ridiculous.
Also, some people think suicide is the most selfish act possible, and their right, you ding dong dork. God put us on this earth for a reason, and it's not to kill ourself.
You have a couple good points. Suicide can be a selfish act and God did not put us here to kill ourselves.
However, if the subject significantly reduces the quality of life of his/her loved ones to a point that the loved ones are chronically and clinically depressed, then the subject is not doing what god put us here to do anyways.
Consistent selfish acts has most likely been the cause of the distress to the loved ones.
If the subject realizes he/she has caused this agony to his/her loved ones, then fails multiple times at correcting his/her actions, he/she may believe suicide is best. Looking at different options to correct the problem prior to contemplating suicide proves the sanity of the subject.
Will the loved ones want the subject to commit suicide? Most likely not. They'd rather be miserable than lose someone they love dearly.
Deciding to take the path of suicide solely because the subject believes that it is doing what is best for his/her loved ones is, by definition selfless, not selfish.
The subject's decision to commit suicide doesn't make him/her insane or selfish. The decision is a symptom of a common condition. Illogicality.
Although I feel that this is an incredibly harsh way in which to phrase the question, I have a logical line of reasoning.
1) Suicidal thoughts and depression are considered mental disorders
2) Sanity represents soundness of mind
3) Therefore, suicidal thoughts are not "sane"
However, I personally would not group them with those suffering from SEVERE mental disorders such as paranoid schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, or belief of intelligent design (its fine to believe what you want but don't put it in a science text book >:P)
Is the only argument that people who are suicidal are sane because suicidal thoughts are normal?
Because it seems like that is a general consensus. I would kindly ask that you read over one of my responses, as I do not wish to copy and paste the same response to the same argument, albeit written by different people in slightly different ways
nope those who wish to commit suicide aren't sane. thats because no sane person would ever want to commit suicide. he'd try to get out of situations alive and happy. a sane person might go insane due to stress or tension or anxiety, which may compel them to kill themselves.
Oh, all of a sudden he's an idiot? Some people say suicide is just plain selfish,and it's actually true. God put us all on this earth for a reason, and committing suicide is like saying f* you.
People who commit suicide are idiots. They think that life needs to be all glamourous and what not. Not everyone lives the good life, you know. Hobos are muddy and hopeless, yet they wait for their change. So stop coming up with excuses and go to the reasonable side.
