Memo

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It appears to me that there are several people offering counsel to others on their behavior and forum etiquette when infact they are the worst perpetrators of an ill willed self assuming pomposity and who take little time to understand anything beyond that which they seek to condemn.

No one in 2015 started as many threads as Grampy Bobby seeking to lecture and reprimand "others on their behavior and forum etiquette" while being, himself, arguably one of "the worst perpetrators of an ill willed self assuming pomposity [...] who takes little time to understand anything beyond that which [he] seeks to condemn" ~ as was the case with his 1950s take on suicide.

For me, his ignorance about mental illness and its possible (and tragically frequent) consequences, was what it was, what can one do? But what I found more revealing was the way that Grampy Bobby declared that those who did not accept the "truth" of his beliefs about suicide were peddlers of "premeditated lies". I think pronouncements like that deserve the flak they get.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps we may do better to attempt to understand his perspective on suicide and why he expressed those sentiments that he did, or we could take the intellectually easy way out and simply condemn him without attempting to understand why he held those views.

Oh, really? O.k., let's try to understand together, shall we? Here
is the summary: people who commit suicide are cowards and
an insult to god. You go first.

Oh yeah, and, as FMF said above, Bob is the etiquette
preacher around here, let's not kid ourselves.

Originally posted by Seitse
Oh, really? O.k., let's try to understand together, shall we? Here
is the summary: people who commit suicide are cowards and
an insult to god. You go first.

Oh yeah, and, as FMF said above, Bob is [b]the etiquette
preacher around here, let's not kid ourselves.[/b]

I am glad you asked 😀 - but before I begin GB's etiquette is usually expressed in a kind of old fashioned abhorrence of talking smack to ladies, just so we are clear, he probably holds open every door and tips his hat to people he knows when strolling on the sidewalk. Is this the actual quote that you have provided or a paraphrase?

people who commit suicide are cowards and an insult to god

Lets take the latter first as its easier to explain. Bobs religious views are such that life is sacrosanct. Therefore to take a life, any life, even ones own is to demonstrate a complete disregard for the sanctity of life. It is a rather mundane affair to see how this can be regarded as an insult to God perceived as the originator of life. Now no one is being asked to accept the premise but its Bobs perspective and should be respected rather than termed disgusting, abysmal etc etc by those who are too intellectually lazy to attempt to understand his thought process.

Seeing suicide as cowardly is perhaps a little more difficult to explain. Who knows what inner turmoil drives a person to take his or her own life, there may be numerous motivating factors. However a definition of cowardly is unprincipled* and Bobs may simply have been alluding to the fact that to him suicide is an unprincipled act. Even if he was not and was referring to an act which he deems to lack fortitude its hardly shocking, disgusting, abysmal etc as the Realhousewives of RHP ( and I apologise to actual housewives everywhere) would have us believe.

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cowardly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am glad you asked 😀 - but before I begin GB's etiquette is usually expressed in a kind of old fashioned abhorrence of talking smack to ladies, just so we are clear, he probably holds open every door and tips his hat to people he knows when strolling on the sidewalk. Is this the actual quote that you have provided or a paraphrase?

people who co ...[text shortened]... ousewives everywhere) would have us believe.

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cowardly

O.k., first let's set the ground rules. Anything not encompassing
a rational driven provision of arguments and a coherent stream of
thought (e.g. sliding every now and then the term lazy) will be
automatically slotted into the "fallacy" or "cognitive bias" locker and
end this discussion.

That said, what you are trying to defend is the delivery of his
opinion, over which there is an almost general consensus that it was
offensive, distasteful, and out of place. By doing so, you are
involuntarily joining the aforementioned consensus. Trying to
rationalize his choice of words reinforces the view that he was
insensitive and outright vulgar.

However, there is a rich tradition of debate around the topic
of suicide dating back at least to Plato (try Phaedo for more details).
His take off point was that suicide was always wrong because it meant
release of the soul from the "posts" the gods have given us as a form
of punishment (i.e. our bodies), and he called for suicides to be buried in
unmarked graves --a great disgrace. His exceptions were when the mind is
morally corrupted, when it is done by judicial order, like Socrates, when
it is compelled by misfortune, and when it arises from shame. Any other
type of suicide was considered cowardly or lazy, at least for Plato.

Now, the latter is important because it is the strongest philosophical
precedent to suicide before Christianity, in which there is one that I want
you to pay a lot of attention to: There is not a single unequivocal
scriptural prohibition of it. The current Christian view on suicide came
only until St. Augustin, based on the 5th commandment and based on
an analogy with bearing false witness, which does add the qualification
"thy neighbor" unlike the 5th. It must be said that there is no uniformity
in Christian theology, though, for there have been notable doctrine in
the contrary citing scriptural support of other forms of killing such as
martyrdom, capital punishment, and wartime.

The Enlightenment, afterwards, brought the views which are prevalent
today, in which either an utilitarian view is espoused or, as in the case
of Hume, the argument is made that the very human fear of death makes
it rational to conclude that suicides are carried out either after very
thorough consideration and justification, or in evident cases, mental
illness, or crippling stress.

So, why am I investing this much time in sharing the thorough complexity,
depth and rich history of the debate regarding suicide? To exemplify that
it is (a) a sensitive subject, and (b) not a simple one either.
Bob is not the first simpleton to chip in and, by all means, not the first one
to regurgitate the Augustine position. Usually, though, since it is not an
easy subject and it is not simple, rational people who happen not to be
psychopaths try to address it with the respect such a deep topic requires.
Moreover, they try to argument it rationally and extensively, precisely due to
its nature. Particularly, Christians (due to the lack of scriptural condemnation)
ought to be careful to construct a sound theological line of thought. He did
not, demonstrating his ignorance and/or his cruelty.

Conclusion: his approach deserves contempt and scorn, for his clumsy and
disrespectful delivery (which you involuntarily acknowledge by your
argumentation angle, as I explained above) demonstrates his complete
disregard for others, his ignorance of the subject, and his utter lack of
tact.

-Removed-

This does not even address the content of my text and in rather predictable fashion you take the opportunity once to insult my religious beliefs, my intelligence and my personal dignity. Is it really the best you can do. Look at Seitse above, what a wonderfully creative and imaginative post. Must we constantly be treated to this toneless and monotonous drivel that you post here day in day out?

-Removed-

At the time, i publicly challenged GB about his comments regarding suicide which i found greatly troubling. (He was of course trespassing on my Professional volition). To his credit, he did apologize for the comments he made. (Forget his precise terminology).

That said, the last post by Seitse was very well written and valid points were made. (Hope he continues in that fashion).

Originally posted by Seitse
Conclusion: his approach deserves contempt and scorn, for his clumsy and
disrespectful delivery (which you involuntarily acknowledge by your
argumentation angle, as I explained above) demonstrates his complete
disregard for others, his ignorance of the subject, and his utter lack of
tact.

*bows deep with respect*

i had not noticed the depth of yer intelligence...
i will not underestimate you again...
rock on, garth...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This does not even address the content of my text [...] Must we constantly be treated to this toneless and monotonous drivel that you post here day in day out?

Oh the irony.