Scholar

One thing that needs to be understood is that, much like with pedophelia, if you suffer from suicide it is profoundly difficult to talk to anyone about it. It is truly taboo and this means that it is so much more difficult to help people with it. People wish they could just throw the therapists at all the mentally ill people and viola, no more suicide. But there is a far deeper problem going on here that we are completely ignorant of because of this taboo, because nobody is really allowed to actually talk about it, not in an honest way. Therapists won't solve this issue because it is systemic. You can try to hire more police officers, but if your society is corrupt to the core, you will not prevent criminality. You can try to catch as many child predators as you want, they will keep coming if the underlying problem here is not resolved. Stigmatization of these issues makes it impossible for us to resolve them. This is essential to understand. Our discomfort, immaturity and inability to engage with these with an open mind is what is allowing for the child abuse, for the suicide, and for all the other ills, to continue. Really, suicide in most cases is a failure of our collective responsibility. And people talking about it openly are a reminder, sometimes a very personal one, of that failure. But us making this a taboo won't suddenly make people any less hopeless.

I added a sentence to clarify why I am making these points.

I don't feel comfortable to go into detail on some of the points because I don't think that's the responsible thing to do in the context of this forum. But beyond that, I want to encourage people to think about this more deeply themselves. In general, when it comes to autonomy vs harm-prevention, people tend to focus either on one or the other. Freedom, in this case human autonomy, has an essential function to evolution. It confronts us, fundamentally, with aspects of our own human nature that we, prior to the freedom, had no opportunity to truly explore. This exploration will always involve mistakes and suffering, but it will expand our consciousness. In this case it very much confronts us with what it means that there are people who want to kill themselves, and who can do so any time they want. You have to consider that in this case, the person already has the autonomy to do what they seek to do. In a way this is just a symbol for how helpless we as a society to truly prevent people from doing so. It's easier to brush it all under the rug when it is happening unofficially. If people we truly free to kill themselves, maybe we would actually have to start caring about each other more than we currently do. Maybe we would need to fundamentally change how we coexist in society. I think this is mainly a discussion about whether or not suicide ought to be taboo, even if people are not aware of it. But a taboo in many ways prevents us from looking at the situation honestly and ever being able to find a solution that will actually work. We can observe the same with child predation and incest.

I know you guys hijacked the thread for petty and childish drama, as tends to happen, but I still want to respond to the topic at hand. I think as society becomes more sophisticated and mature, freedoms will expand. A fully conscious and mature civilization would in theory require no regulations as to what individuals can do with themselves and to each other. This cannot be fathomed because of how profoundly immature our society still is. But remember, it was not that long ago when civilizations had to mandate even the position in which you could have sex in, so that you wouldn't become a horny bastard who ruined society and got everyone enslaved by the tribe next door. The kind of freedoms we are given require of us greater responsibility, which requires greater consciousness and maturity. As far as euthanasia for mental diseases goes, I think people underestimate how significant the suffering from mental diseases can be, and how little we have to actually treat some of these conditions. The mind can create any type of hell, ideally, if we have systems to prevent individuals from simply committing suicide (which seems to be the case in the netherlands despite the attempt to smear the whole thing by the media) in situations that might be fixable, there is nothing that makes this different from someone who suffers from some physical condition that causes immeasurable pain and cannot be treated. But nonetheless, it is a complex ethical issue. I want to urge people to actually investigate the reasoning behind permitting such things with an open and mature mind. I also want to point out that these types of topics tend to evoke strong emotions in us, that make us unable to consciously engage with the substance at hand, and makes us reactive rather than open-minded. I think there is something that was given little importance in this discussion so far that in general is overlooked when it comes to controversial topics like these, and that is the value of autonomy. While it is true that certain freedoms will lead to negative consequences, it is also true that limiting freedoms means violating fundamental human autonomy and will. While harm reduction principles are important to consider, we must weigh them against the principles of liberty and dignity. Not allowing this means that you will inevitably violate someones autonomy, and not someone who was simply irrational and therefore not functionally autonomous. You will condemn such individuals to an undignified death or to a life of unbarable suffering. Or simply to prevent them from making the choice of ending their life. It's easy to ignore this, to not be aware of it, to only see the potential harms from this, which are certainly present. But if we do not recognize this reality, we will not be able to actually contend with the issue at hand. In the end, the more pressing manner is for us to find a way of living and coexisting such that we don't have so many people who feel hopeless in life, such that they want to kill themselves.

We have to abolish factory farming, it's feasible given that we don't need to consume animal products, and especially not on that scale.

That's not what a strawman is, and I never said anyone is conspiring to create super viruses. I am saying these are the consequences of the system in place.

Primarily due to animal agriculture, a super-virus is simply a matter of time. The conditions within factory farms are optimal for the evolution of zoonotic diseases that can cross the species barrier. This has been known for decades, yet consumptive habits nor regulations do anything to curb this issue in a significant way. Factory farms basically are incubators for the most nasty bacteria and viruses possible. If you wanted to create a virus that wiped out half of mankind, you would do so by building factory farms. If you wanted to create antibiotic resistant bacteria that could kill hundreds of millions of people, you would also just build factory farms. All you really need to create the most potent biological weapon possible is factory farms and time.

https://heavy.com/news/man-set-himself-on-fire-trump-trial-video/ His manifesto: https://www.newsweek.com/read-max-azzarello-manifesto-about-lighting-himself-fire-trump-trial-1892368 All of you guys who have called that other insane person who set themselves on fire infront of the Israeli embassy a hero, well, these are the consequences of such attitudes. This doesn't do anything but cause more harm and suffering. Nobody will be convinced by this, in fact, quite the opposite. And the only people who will be motivated by such actions will be mentally ill people who will now feel like they have a good excuse for finally kill themselves. Social media is frying people's brains and it is genuinely becoming the Nr 1 national security risk for most developed countries. This is only the beginning, it will get far worse before anyone will regulate the technologies that are actively eroding the fabric of society.

Your dreams indicate immaturity. We need to be very careful, especially in todays climate, about upholding our ideals of civility. It might be the most crucial time in history to do so, because of how high the stakes are. Civility is not guaranteed.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because we do not even punish such people with life in prison. It wouldn't be a greater deterant than if you simply put them in prison for life. Your logic is just silly. You only get negatives, while achieving nothing that you could not achieve with deterants that are in line with fundamental priniples of humanity, civility and moral progress. Even ChatGPT is more sophisticated than you are on this question, which should be embarrassing. Especially people such as the most vile criminals are essential for us as a society to transcend such flaws in our nature. We must understand them, we must allow them to to exist so as to demonstrate our core values as a soiety, and we must allow them to redeem themselves. If you just execute everyone who is evil, how will we ever learn how these people came to be? Their self-understanding, as would be achieved through self-reflection, is of essential utility to us. There are various other arguments for why the death penality in the contemporary context is simply inappropriate, but that would require you to think about what you say before you say it. Alternatively you can go and ask Claude for some guidance.

Because you can't just make special exemptions on a fundamental principle of civility based on some socialist ideal you have because you listen to too much Hasan. The entire idea of killing defenseless people, which has never shown to have any impact on preventing crime, is something we are moving away from as a developed society. Putting them in prison for life would be more than sufficient. There is literally no point in contradicting our fundamental values as a society so that we an feel validated about "punishing the rich". Especially in a context in which we don't even put these people in prison! How about you start putting them in prison instead of going for executions and opening pandora's box? Mayber we should make a very simple clear cut law that executes people who advocate for the usage of psychedelics and moral nihilism, which leads to an increase in suicidality and social harm.

That's exactly the language fascists employ. What you don't realize is that you are actually the parasite, and that, by your own logic, you should be eradicated. But of course, you don't agree with that, because you are a parasite, whose nature is ignorance and malice, and therefore believes that you won't be one of the people who should get executed. You're lucky most of mankind has transcended this laughably undeveloped mentality, so in the end you are privileged enough to never get to experience the consequences of your ignorance. But you are free to circle-jerk on here with all the rest of the socially and mentally defunct people on this forum.

The funny thing is, by giving power to the state to execute people, realistically, you are giving the most powerful and wealthy the power to execute people, because they are the ones who will have most influence over the system. It's kind of how democracy in the US no longer is about reflecting the views of the population, but rather, political figures and various interests instilling in the population certain viewpoints that will benefit them. Like how half of your society was convinced that they cared about denying climate change, when they never did, and never would have if the politicians wouldn't have implanted those issues in their brains.

That's what the chinese said.

This is precisely the lack of humanity I am speaking of. By condemning this individual to unnecessary death and suffering, we deny our own universality. This is to say that this person is jimwell's incarnation, and that he will be the next incarnation, too. So, in essence, he is wishing death and suffering upon himself, because his lack of development blinds him to the nature of individuation.