Do you think suicide is coward's way out?

Discussion in 'The Guru's Pub' started by kopekbaligi, Jan 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sdamaged99

    sdamaged99 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    Inno3d GTX1080 Ti
    Easy to call someone a "coward".

    What if that person lost his wife / children and just couldn't go on living?

    I can quite understand how people would consider it. I don't know what i would do if i lost my wife and kids.

    EDIT - Hallryu, what an awful thing to say and what a narrow minded attitude!
    You're pretty much saying that it's "good these people are gone"

    I hope you never experience anything tragic in your life.

    I'm surprised by how little compassion and understanding there is on this forum. I know we are all of different race / religion and age, but come on guys, not everything is black and white.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  2. hallryu

    hallryu Don Altobello

    Messages:
    11,386
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    2x HD7970
    Together with my staff I deal with a lot of suicides. I'm judging from the point of view of investigating the lives involved, carrying out the corpses and reporting to the Coroner.

    Not dealt witha single vet killing themselves tbh. However, I have seen plenty of wasted empty lives with people contributing nothing and causing abject misery to all around them and their families. Burdening the state, all the public sector services and all around them with their problems.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  3. gunman127

    gunman127 Master Guru

    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    980Ti 6GB 960 2GB
    State sanctioned suicide suites would certainley help London a lot!

    At least once a month one of the mainline train links is shut for a day because of some selfish sod repainting a train with his face.

    I can understand they felt ignored in life and want to make sure they get noticed in death, but thats still completely unacceptable!
     
  4. Decane

    Decane Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    19
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6GB
    If you’re dead, it’s impossible to experience pain, but it’s also impossible to experience pain’s absence - suicide does not "relieve" anyone of the burdens of the world since agency stops the split-second you off yourself. What good is killing yourself to "stop the pain" if you are not there to experience the absence of the pain you sought relief from?
     

  5. vidra

    vidra Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX1060 6GB
    I believe it's a completely legitimate way of 'checking out' regardless of the powerful stigma attached to it. It is more often than not a trait of intelligent, thoughtful people to be able to step outside the 'self' and actually think about ending their life, thus going against the single strongest instinct they possess. That said, people's reasons for taking their lives vary, some are indeed a coward's way out, others are not. Also, since I believe the film "Idiocracy" to be very prophetic, I have little respect for the human gene pool. In today's nanny-state/stab-thy-neighbour-for-a-bit-of-cash society, it is no longer the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the stupidest, most mediocre, most subservient and most opportunistic.

    I have made a good life for myself and would not commit suicide, especially since I have a very strong survival instinct which saved me on more than one occasion, but I can indeed imagine a set of circumstances that would make that particular option seem both logical and necessary. Although Western civilisation is outwardly an atheist one, the Christian dogma still has a powerful influence even on the most devout atheist's set of beliefs. Being able to see past its taboos is no easy task, so deep-rooted is the indoctrination.
     
  6. Cambria

    Cambria Banned

    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GTS 320MB
    Everyone has different reasons for wanting to die.

    But most of them are not thinking rationally. As one episode of Law and Order will explain to you.
     
  7. dchalf10

    dchalf10 Banned

    Messages:
    4,034
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX670 1293/6800
    I think people that call suicide a cowards way out do so from their soap box in ignorance.

    People's problems are not relative. If someone is absolutely devastated that they lost their wife in a car accident ( and he has no kids ) and decided to kill himself, do you think he would find solace in the fact that there are people who had it 'worse'; eg. a man who lost his wife AND child?

    No...because that does not decrease his suffering. This goes for any problems in life. A man who's wife leaves him and leaves him bankrupt does not find solace in the fact that there are some people who never had a wife and/or money.

    If some people are backed against the wall and death is a preferable alternative to a life of suffering or despair, then so be it.

    A persons life is their own to take or to make with what they will.

    No one can judge someone for killing themselves from their completely incomparable lives. Even two people in similar ( current ) circumstances will have a completely different view of the world based on their past ( unknown to others ).

    Most people who take their lives or are depressed don't even let other people know. People who suffer alone and take their own lives have tried to deal with it by themselves. It's easier to ask for help but society has put a stigma on asking for help for men.

    So you're a coward if you ask for help and take medication in the eyes of the masses, and you're a coward if you kill yourself...

    No wonder people off themselves.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012
  8. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,046
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    GPU:
    2070 Super
  9. nutyo

    nutyo Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,589
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Sapphire Vapor-X HD5870
    Suicide is only ever an option if there is no chance of things ever getting better between now and your natural death. To end mortal suffering.

    Suicide due to depression? Post traumatic stress? Absolutely not ok. Under any circumstance. You can make up the most gruesome, traumatic scenario ever and it wouldn't matter. Suicide is not an option.

    That being said there is no point called someone who has committed suicide anything. They're dead. Move on and try and save the next patient.
     
  10. Luumpy

    Luumpy Master Guru

    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    470gtx s/c
     

  11. scheherazade

    scheherazade Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    fullHDs

    You're asking about an opinion of someone else's life choice.
    Ultimately, the actions of [any number of] consenting individuals are no one else's business.
    Hence, no one can have a legitimate opinion of such a matter, unless they are the person in question.

    That said,
    People don't kill themselves because they 'fear' living.
    Life has to be a burden that they don't want to cope with.
    Scary is not burdensome, and burdensome is not scary. Two very different things.
    Hence, calling a subject within the issue cowardly is misrepresenting reality. It's just name-calling. Arbitrary.

    And that said, most people are scared to kill themselves.

    -scheherazade
     
  12. Jayaitch

    Jayaitch Member Guru

    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    nVidia GTX 460
    Humans are very self destructive and most people do not realise it.

    The Smokers
    The Drinkers
    Drugs (Legal & Illegal)
    The bad things we eat

    All have the potential to induce self inflicted death - Would you class this as suicide?

    A professional Race Driver slams into a wall during a race and kills himself. Accident or Suicide? But what’s the difference? His actions took his own life.

    All human beings have what I call suicidal or self destructive tendencies whether it’s a long drawn out suicide or a quick one, the end result is always the same.
     
  13. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    GPU:
    RX 6900xt / RTX3090
    Dude , Seriously , you need Medical Help asap. Look for a good Psycoligist or Psychiatrist in your area , its for your own good.
     
  14. Pill Monster

    Pill Monster Banned

    Messages:
    25,214
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    7950 Vapor-X 1100/1500
    Why did you say that?
     
  15. scheherazade

    scheherazade Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    fullHDs

    There's more to it than quitting and wasting.

    (Pardon the rant, read if you like... it's OT)

    Look at it like a graph. Nodes connected to other nodes, each of different weight.
    Central nodes being heavily weighted, and leaves being lightly weighted.



    Imagine the relationship to an employer and his workers. Say 1 employer, 10 workers.
    It's a one-to-many relationship.

    employer side <-> labor side

    If the employer imposes a condition on workers, 1/1 of the employer side (100%) affects the labor side.

    If an employee imposes a condition on employer, 1/10 of the employee side (10%) affects the employer side.

    Hence, the relative influence of people on either side is lop sided.
    Bargaining power of employees in this situation is 1/10th of the employer.
    Hence an employer has 10x the influence of an employee.

    The employer is safe to impose time and wage demands on the employees, even though the employees don't want to agree to the demands. Without a union, the employees can never negotiate on equal terms.



    You can take that to another level of abstraction.
    Imagine a large company with 10 suppliers.
    The large company can impose price or availability demands on many suppliers.
    But any one supplier can at most affect the company 10%, making it safe for the large company to muscle the small companies.
    Hence the company is able to impose itself on a lot of smaller companies, but if the smaller companies were to organize and collaborate (say, on prices) their leaders would go to jail.

    Shared connections also allow nodes to influence other nodes by proxy. If a small node makes connections to the same nodes that a large node does, the large node influences those connections against the small node. Even things like 'group discount pricing on purchases from X shared supplier' make it impossible for a small business to compete with a large one.



    What this means is that :
    - As you gain money, you gain influence.
    - As you gain influence, you gain the ability to force the people and companies you do business with to work in conditions favorable to you, and unfavorable to them.
    - With conditions favoring you, you gain more money while they lose money (relative to you).
    - And the cycle repeats.

    What this means is that better connected nodes have higher values, which without an external force will grow even higher in value while their leaves grow lower in value.
    Eventually, the large nodes eliminate weaker nodes, and create a poorly connected graph where they themselves are the nexus' of many smaller connections - making their influence insurmountable.

    Basically, an unregulated market naturally leads to a few very powerful players, and everyone else is a peon. Like the days of the old Rockafeller-esque super-companies, from before anti-trust laws broke things up. That was the 'end game' scenario before the game was reset (anti-trusts).

    Nowadays, the economy is converging back into the 'few big guys' situation, and the big guys are dragging down their connections too much.

    The 'CEO income being 1000x+ the salary of the average company worker' is merely a symptom. High influence companies have obscenely high proportions of wealth. Employees with high influences (CEO) have an obscenely high percentage of the companies wealth.

    Everyone else is a nobody with no influence, and not enough money to gain any influence. Influence/money is competitive.
    The existing 'large value nodes' are influencing their neighbors (government[laws],suppliers,partners) in a way to make it difficult or impossible for smaller nodes to grow.

    (In regards to the "CEO types", they're amusingly called "job creators". They're simply upper employees who tend to avoid taxes by being paid in stock rather than cash. Upper employee incomes are not related to the company income, which is the true 'job creator'. The Upper employees do not create any jobs. Hence there is no danger of losing jobs by taxing them more. Even owners do not pay employee salaries out of pocket. Owners are employees themselves. That's the definition of being "incorporated".)


    It's an interconnected environment where money=speech, and large companies have the loudest voice.
    The largest companies are free to act in a manner profitable to them, and destructive to their neighbors.
    The largest companies have enough influence to skew law and lawmakers in their favor.
    As a result the legal environment guarantees that the predatory behavior of large companies is legally sanctioned (lawmakers retire to start companies that sub-contract to large companies [or the government] with guaranteed non-competitive contracts, or work as symbolic consultants collecting what amounts to kick-back money while not even doing any work).
    The political influence allows these companies to requisition public funds to supplant losses, while windfall profits remain in private hands - the companies become public parasites.
    Their high economic connectivity makes these companies a liability should they disappear, effectively punching holes into the graph, disconnecting many other nodes. The large nodes have built a graph structure that guarantees their necessity (i.e. too big to fail).


    What the occupy protesters call this situation is 'social injustice'.
    They're there to basically complain about how 'life is unfair' ...
    Which in itself is a very, very poor argument to have about anything...

    However, to be a legitimate Democracy, the government should be representing the voters.
    Currently, the government is representing itself and its donors, and not the voters.
    Large companies give lawmakers money for campaigns, and for retirement positions within the companies, and for contracts for lawmaker's companies... guaranteeing lawmakers lucrative jobs. This makes lawmakers beholden to the companies, NOT to the citizens.

    Voters today exist to be harvested for their money (taxed), so the money can be handed over to the companies belonging to the influential (contracts, bailouts).

    Furthermore, the companies fleecing the citizens have managed to push enough propaganda to make some believe that the money taxed from the citizens should not be spent on services for the citizens... that somehow the citizens are not entitled to what they've paid for ... and that the money is better spent on contracts for lawmaker's friends companies, lawmaker's families companies, and lawmaker's campaign contributors (large companies), B.S.ing it away on tasks that citizens don't need, while not providing services that citizens do need.

    It's not a situation that's beneficial to practically all the people of the country.
    Hence the 99% slogans, and general complaints about how 'the system sucks'.

    And one of the reasons you see so much police brutality is because the police are employees of the government. The government pays the police, providing for their livelihoods, feeds their kids, puts them through school, etc. When people come along that say "we don't like the big companies+government orgy that's going on in this country", they're also saying to the police "we don't like you having food on the table". Throughout history, the police and military side with the government rather than protesters. Government and police depend on each other. The first makes sure the second is in power, and the second makes sure the first has a livelihood. It's kind of like the relationship lawmakers have with big companies...

    It's why I think police pay should be derived from county taxes only, but police command should not be in the power of the counties. And no fines collected from policing should go towards the county paying for the police force. Making sure that the people who command and the people who pay are not the same, and hopefully creating some sense of obligation for the police to be civil to those they are policing.

    -scheherazade
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2012

  16. chispy

    chispy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,084
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    GPU:
    RX 6900xt / RTX3090
    You got PM Bro :)
     
  17. Repo Man

    Repo Man Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    407
    GPU:
    RTX 3060Ti
    I was thinking of typing down something profound and such but instead i'll just say the following and please dont think i'm trying to score some sympathy here, i'm only providing my thought process for example purposes.

    On monday morning my fiancee experienced a severe headache followed by a seizure and a great deal of pain in her head, she told me to call an ambulance because she knew that what she was feeling at the time wasnt right and i could tell from her face that this was a real emergency. So she was taken to the A&E ( the ER as its known in the US or Ensi Apu for all the finnish readers ) where she was diagnosed with an aneyrism in her brain.

    Long story short, shes had a keyhole procedure done through an artery that was accessed from her groin and during the procedure, said artery was ruptured and shes still in quite a lot of pain.

    Ok so now you sort of have a rough idea of whats going on with my partner, to add the proverbial insult to injury, i got a number of other things going on for me, as if life in Camerons Britain wasnt tough enough! I need to put a brave face on for my partners kids because the moment i freak out infront of them means that they know the game is over. I need to stay strong in this and i am but the other day as i was walking to the hospital i thought to myself: i wonder, if my partner didnt make through this would i still carry on with life ? Yea i probably would!...

    Except back home in Finland my parents arent doing all too well, my mother is trying to retire because shes too poorly to work full time and this is a woman who is 63 and has worked 6 days per week for the past 26+ years, i got my dad who is very poorly and trying to keep up with things and is retired and they are getting evicted as we speak because goverments are a bunch of greedy effing c**ts.

    So heres how it boils down to me on a personal level... the other day i'm walking towards the J.R Hospital here in Oxford, where my partner, the love of my life, my fiancee is being treated and i know she is in a real bad state i find myself thinking that this year can end up real fu**ing bad, not only might i lose the love of my life, but also both of my parents and i find myself wondering that should this happen, is there a reason for me to go on ?

    This was just to provide an example, i cant even begin to comprehend what goes on in the head of someone who is genuinly contemplating ending his or hers life as we "speak"...

    i don't wish to sound overly "emo" all i ask is that dont be a dick, realise that there may be underlying causes wich you may have never realised that could exist.
     
  18. Sprecker

    Sprecker Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Zotech 680 4g
    Life is to live. If you no longer want to why bother? We all die. We all will deal with it one day. What's the difference how it happened? People who think suicide is wrong, a cowards way out or whatever are just selfish.
    I believe that most people who kill them selves were probably not living anyway so what's the loss? I doubt anyone has woken up and out of the blue desided to just kill themselves. Why do people feel they need to impose what they belive life is and totaly ignore what others believe? If someone thought the world would be better without them who are you to say they are wrong? They would seem to know better than you on how the world has treated them. Of course it's all in their head and the world really doesn't care about them that much that it would make it harder for them. It's also in your head to think that by toughing it out and continue living it would get better for them.
    Serioulsy, as long as no one kills anyone else (assisted suicide being another topic altogether) I have no problem with someone I don't personaly know doing the final deed. It doesn't affect me so it souldn't effect me. Selfish? Yes. Should I think anyother way? Sure. But then I might as well quit my job, give up my house, stop buying food and just live only to help those that would otherwise have no help.
    You can't do anything for yourself in the world without a direct negative afffect on something or someone. You either live according to your will or someone else's. Etc...
    The only thing about suicide I don't like is that it seems that the wrong people seem to do it.
     
  19. kopekbaligi

    kopekbaligi Banned

    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD5870 1GB
    Why? I feel offended by your post? Why did you say that?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2012
  20. Decane

    Decane Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    19
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6GB
    The real question is whether a life with "sufficient" suffering is or is not preferable to an eternity of non-agency.

    Since it is impossible to experience non-agency in a state of agency, it also is impossible to provide an informed answer to this question. That is, because I cannot imagine how it would be to not exist (since all my memories and current agency are based in existence), I also cannot know how I would rank non-existence -- the state of which I have no experience, and indeed cannot possibly have experience -- against life with sufficient suffering (whatever may constitute "sufficient", in this case). In a moment's desperation, my cognition may become biased to the extent that I become momentarily convinced (perhaps due to wishful thinking as induced by the intensity of the pain I am feeling) that life can have 'negative value', i.e. that non-life under some circumstances may be preferable to life, yet upon further reflection, it will be obvious that this constitutes an uninformed judgement triggered by a series of defense mechanisms to bring relief from whatever pain I happen to be feeling at that moment.

    It follows that suicide is always ill-informed, and may only ever be the correct decision (however we define "correct") incidentally. In other words, if you commit suicide in a moment's desperation (or even after careful consideration), and it turns out -- through the judgement of some hypothetical third-person omniscient observer -- that it was the correct decision, its correctness would have been accidental, since there is no possible way you could have been able to anticipate its value being above that of the alternative (= 'living with the pain') due to the complete absence of an experiential link between you and being dead.

    Suicide is therefore a gamble, and I for one am too risk-averse to consider it a viable alternative. Furthermore, I would like to restate the question I laid out in my previous post:

    I will tip my virtual hat to anyone who can provide a satisfactory answer to this question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page