| Author |
Message |
    
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 749
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |     |
My best friend told me an event that happened on the board he frequents, and it poses the question when are you meddling in somebody's private life and when are you helping?
We all know the suicide story, where a poster on a board expresses the wish to kill hirself, and other members trying to find family or friends of that person in RL, contact them, and thereby save the suicidal posting member.
But what if it's a minor who's pregnant? What if the minor wants to perform abortion? Or in the case of my best friend's story... What if a UK minor of 16 is gay and has a relationship with a 21 year old? In that case a Californian bigoted anti-gay member called for others to find out who the parents of other member of 16 were and warn them the minor was being 'mollested' by an adult gay man.
I advized my best friend to look up the age of consent in the UK, and post back that no other poster had any business in meddling in the minor's private sexual life, because for the UK a 16-year old gay could have sexual relationships with an adult.
Personally, I think that a poster preferably talks with the other member and tries to help them one-on-one, and that posters try to intervene and inform RL contacts only in acute life-threatening situations.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 2:03 pm: | |
IMHO, the most important thing on/offline is the right to choose, a certain basic freedom of thought and decision.
Suicidal people (and I know quite a few that tried and one that managed) don't want to be saved. Let them decide, death is in no way inferior to life.
So, if intervention is negative in such an important matter as life or death, certainly it's impolite, rude interruption when talking about smaller affairs.
The net is a world of it's own, for bad and for good. A poster entrusting (on the net) a fellow member with private information acts under the assumption (somewhat naive) that it will remain on the screen, never to go to the real universe (yes, my friends, there is something beyond the web ). Breaking this trust is, I think, a breach of the netiquette, the one thing keeping the net a pleasant place.
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 6:15 am: | |
Oh what a mess.
Yes, you should only involve yourself if there is an immediate danger of death - to any party.
The Californian is some do-gooder that needs to get stuffed. Now, if it was a minor, I would respond differently. In that case, just report it to the police.
In life or death or crimminal activity, I would act online as I act IRL. Otherwise, I try to stay out of things.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 2:22 pm: | |
Why interfere in affairs of life and death? Same question for RL - why stop somebody from suiciding?
I know it sounds obvious to save someone's life, but what's so great about, say, waking up somebody who took pills (or something similar) just to keep him alive, though possibly crippled for life due to the chemical damage the nerves sustained?
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 761
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 8:03 pm: | |
Perhaps because a threat of suicide is often a desperate call for help?
Because life has a value, and a depressed person may not be thinking straight enough to make such a choice?
Because depression is treatable/curable, and death is not?
Because mental illness is not a reason for the death penalty, even if it is self inflicted?
Why interfere in affairs of life and death?
Are you against food programs? Health care? Criminal justice? They are just "affairs of life and death".
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 27
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 8:22 pm: | |
Criminal justice is performed to keep the choice free for many people, albeit at the cost of a single life. In other cases you mention, I think it's just an option and one must decide for himself whether to use health care etc.
As to the arguments brought up before that, you use a postulate "life is better than death". Nothing new about that, it's the standart reply. Every sentence used contains the default opinion death is something to be prevented. It's true for many, but it's false for some...
Because life has a value, and a depressed person may not be thinking straight enough to make such a choice?
And you assume it's up to you to decide for someone else what's life's value? Or what is "thinking straight"?
The strongest point made is Perhaps because a threat of suicide is often a desperate call for help? . I admit, I don't have a clear counter for that. Only this: when seeing a post on the net, it's quite impossible to tell what is really the case. A possible conclusion is to try and talk to this person, without taking physical action to prevent anything. If it's just a plea for attention and care, such contact can be enough. Most such cries for help are from people who can't perform suicide anyway.
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 751
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 9:38 pm: | |
Though, I don't think demeaning of suicide, and would defend someone's right to have euthanasia performed and even take hir own active life unaided, I side with those who would try to prevent the action from happening.
Suicide stems from a depressed state of mind, whether pathalogical or as a consequence of events in life. It's an acute mental state of pain that does not seem to cease to the one who has it. Aside from that, depression often goes hand in hand with feelings of shame.
I've been on the brink of it, having been as far as pre-suicidal (= starting to think of it as a valuable possibility to solve the pain).
Suicide therefore is seen as a possible solution to the pain state. The depressive mental state though, prevents the depressed from possibly seeing other solutions. Not that a depressed thinks unclearly, and therefore is incapacitated of making choices. A depressed person can have many great and acute insights about the problem that causes the pain, but often not about the solution to the problem. At some point the pain itself becomes a problem, and the only way out from the pain seems to be the end of life itself.
Certainly depression caused by life events can be helped without suicide. And for some pathological depressed medication can help. I am no doctor, who can determine what kind of depression someone has, not personally, nor online. But I do know the depressed state, long term mental/emotional pain and suicidal thoughts. And I know that suicide is not necessarily the only option or solution.
If a person were to mention online to have presuicidal or suicidal thoughts, I would be there for them online, and if an acute death wish would be mentioned I would try to raise a RL alarm, based on the above views, and Bear's argument that the post is not simply a goodbye post, but an expression of that person of how much pain he/she is in, and thus a call for help.
But do I think someone who shot part of his face off, or thrown himself in front of a vehicle for the nth suicide attempt, should be reanimated against all cost? Nope.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Colpul
gatherer
Username: Colpul
Post Number: 185
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 10:55 pm: | |
Catfriend: "Why interfere in affairs of life and death?"
Hum an existential libertarian, because as Kierkegaard would say: because we think it right. There are two sides to Hamlet's "Tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so" Good and bad or even evil do not exist outside of abstract concepts. We create good and bad as things but that makes them none the less real. So remember though in a tangible sense there is no good or evil like there is a tangible hard and soft, thinking still makes it so. Murder and rape are only evil because we think them so. Where should the line be? Where we choose to draw it.
Sometimes I wonder how we'll answer for what we've done which makes me wonder if atheists are being optimistic.
|
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:53 pm: | |
Murder and rape are bad, in my approach, because they harm what I mentioned as the most important - freedom of choice. That's the line I draw - life has no priority over death, one decides for himself. Therefore, if I choose death over life, it's my own decision to make - and as SSR said, depression doesn't mean lack of thought.
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Colpul
gatherer
Username: Colpul
Post Number: 186
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 12:24 am: | |
You asked why its bad not whether it should be considered bad. As a deity, granted without a constituency but even Yahweh had to start someplace, I feel that suicide is not only moral but on the spot ending of one's life is a great good should they be one of the five people in line before me at the cinema plex. It might not grant you entrance into paradise but will in the next life be rewarded with a 2 for 1 coupon worth $10 towards a second dinner at 'TGI Friday's'. Drink of the kool-aid and be saved as one of my fellow deities once said.
Sometimes I wonder how we'll answer for what we've done which makes me wonder if atheists are being optimistic.
|
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 7:33 am: | |
And if it is your choice, what is the hurry? Can't you at least wait until someone verifies that you aren't crazy, that you aren't screaming for help and that you are of sound mind, simply finished with your life? You might be, but the next person might just be acting out, crying for help. In that case, I would prefer to err on the side of caution.
Scott
PS: Colpul, I almost choked on my kool-aid I was laughing so hard. So far I am still here.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:17 am: | |
Scott, Hamlet answers you:
"Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action".
Suicide is certainly not an easy thing to do. One needs almost unnatural resolve and will-power to overcome our automatic instincts. I, for one, didn't manage when I needed it desperately.
-- someone verifies you're not crazy -- and how exactly can it be verified? Who will judge and declare sanity for what it is? Besides, no need to check. I'm quite certain I am crazy 
-- crying for help -- I already aknowledged this repeated yet very strong argument. And the answer is to contact him online.. The attempt to help IRL can easily turn disastrous.
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Colpul
gatherer
Username: Colpul
Post Number: 191
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 6:30 pm: | |
The question is one of "rights" versus "obligation". Does our right to life, and thus the right to set our life aside, supersede any obligation to carry on life in the name of life's importance?
Sometimes I wonder how we'll answer for what we've done which makes me wonder if atheists are being optimistic.
|
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 8:37 pm: | |
I never signed a "Life Obligation" paper nor do I believe life has any advantage over death. That's the same worn-out postulate I mentioned above - many here (and everywhere) assume death is in some way inferior, worse. If that's your belief - great, act correspondingly. Let me, who doesn't see life as a gift, a granted bonus or the like, have the free choice I prefer to anything else.
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Colpul
gatherer
Username: Colpul
Post Number: 194
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:25 pm: | |
I've made no claim, as a matter of fact I think one's life is between them and their god (note: random chance or cause and effect falls under "god" here). That however is a very western "enlightenment" view of it. The notion that you "own" your life. Another view would be that you did not create your life, your parents and their parents and... created your life and society made your creation possible and thus the society "owns" your life. It isn't a right or wrong, just how you look at it and which you and 'we' as a society choose to acknowledge. Rights don't exist in nature, we create them, define them and allow their free expression.
You do know that while you can obligate yourself you can be obligated by others as well right? When you are born a citizen you do not sign the social contract but are none the less bound by it for example. Your profile says you are from Israel right? Males are obligated to serve in the military despite whether or not they choose as individuals to join of free will no?
Sometimes I wonder how we'll answer for what we've done which makes me wonder if atheists are being optimistic.
|
Catfriend
bear cub
Username: Catfriend
Post Number: 43
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 11:10 pm: | |
It's my own choice whether to serve or to sit in prison. No joke intended, these are the conditions. About parents giving birth - I certainly didn't ask them that. I'm obligated by others only if I owe them something. Thus, I'm obligated to help my country only if I use its services. Right now, I do. Therefore, I must (and wish to) help Israel.
P.S If we're trying to be well-informed - it's not only males. Girls serve as well.
One Ring to rule them all
One Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all
And in the Darkness bind them! |
Colpul
gatherer
Username: Colpul
Post Number: 196
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 12:27 am: | |
"It's my own choice whether to serve or to sit in prison." Isn't that the same with any obligation whether yours or imposed on you? If I take out a loan I've obligated myself and if I fail in that obligation I sit in jail.
Whether or not, the argument would go, you asked your parents or not they none the less made you. A painting didn't ask you to make it either but if you paint it you own it, at least until you pass possession or destroy it. That you think for yourself doesn't make any difference. It’s a value judgement and you value personal liberty over social constructs. No problem with that, me too.
"P.S If we're trying to be well-informed - it's not only males. Girls serve as well." That kind of surprises me.
Sometimes I wonder how we'll answer for what we've done which makes me wonder if atheists are being optimistic.
|
Pine
flint knapper
Username: Pine
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 2:01 am: | |
Colpul, I served 2.5 years - 2 were obligatory, the 0.5 extra was my choice, in return for having some control over my area of service and specific training (electronics, in my case). But that was when I was young and still thought patriotism was a positive value.
Cohen's Law: 'Unless you fail at more than 10% of the things you try, you aren't trying enough things.' |
Colpul
gatherer
Username: Colpul
Post Number: 199
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 4:59 am: | |
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
WILFRED OWEN
Sometimes I wonder how we'll answer for what we've done which makes me wonder if atheists are being optimistic.
|
|
Head-Clash-In