Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?

Originally posted by windmill
Sometimes people who commit suicide go through a period of 'letting go' and become in a sense normal in every way for a time only to succumb to suicide.It is a shock to friends and family as they think the problem is sorted but in reality they are just dropped off a higher cliff. ...[text shortened]... ob with many around the world.Still these can also be good qualities depending on the situation.

windmill: "In NZ we have had an attitude problem of being expected to deal with problems on our own."

Not just in NZ .... "Solidarity" isn't exactly a notion that is being looked upon as necessary or even desirable in the ruling Western ideology.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
windmill: "In NZ we have had an attitude problem of being expected to deal with problems on our own."

Not just in NZ .... "Solidarity" isn't exactly a notion that is being looked upon as necessary or even desirable in the ruling Western ideology.

Times have changed as the high suicide rates of young people have been addressed over recent years.Sometimes it's good to go at things alone...sometimes not.Those who lose trust have little option.

Originally posted by Nemesio
[b] Because you become PARANOID the second anyone asserts a position contrary.

Do you know what you and marauder are doing or is it just a natural trait you both share?

Originally posted by windmill
Do you know what you and marauder are doing or is it just a natural trait you both share?

😀 😵 😀

Let's try to get this thread back on track.

Let's make a few scenarios:

Option 1: A person is in a room of a burning building. It is on
fire because of an electrical failure and not because of any malice.
The person is trapped and the flames are becoming unendurable.
They may choose to let the flames burn them to death -- an
extraordinarily painful choice -- or they may jump out a 15-story
window to a certain death.

If they choose the latter, is it suicide? Why or why not?

Option 2: A person is captured by the enemy and is being
systematically tortured for information that the person does not
even possess. S/He knows that the next torture will be excruciatingly
painful and will probably not survive it (although if s/he does,
there will just be another one waiting to follow it). S/He has, as
part of the army-distributed gear, a cyanide pill which, if taken,
will end life in a matter of moments in a painless fashion.

If the person chooses to consume the pill, is it suicide? Why or
why not?

Option 3: A person is dying in the hospital of bone cancer. This
person has no friends or relatives any more (having outlived them).
Short of being in a deep coma, the person is in constant pain which
cannot be remedied or significantly reduced. A nurse can give the
person a shot which will stop the heart and kill the person painlessly.

If the person chooses to take the shot, is it suicide? Why or why not?

Option 4: An old man has just lost his wife. Although in reasonably
good physical health, he had no other activities in his life of any
significance that didn't involve her. Additionally, he has recently been
diagnosed with very early stages of Alzheimers, which would make
learning new tasks and establishing new relationships very difficult.
In other words, he does not have anything to live for in his opinion
and it would be difficult to develop anything new in his current, soon-
to-be deteriorating condition. He has a vial of Viacadin which contains
a fatal amount of medication if he consumes the whole thing.

If this man chooses this option, is it suicide? Why or why not?

The key issue here, folks, is to not explain the trivial differences
amongst the situations but the essential differnces. If you think
that one of the options is suicide, but not the others, what essential
thing or things distinguishes that scenario from the remaining three
(or whatever number).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Let's try to get this thread back on track.

Let's make a few scenarios:

Option 1: A person is in a room of a burning building. It is on
fire because of an electrical failure and not because of any malice.
The person is trapped and the flames are becoming unendurable.
They may choose to let the flames burn them to death -- an
extraordinarily pai ...[text shortened]... or things distinguishes that scenario from the remaining three
(or whatever number).

Nemesio

I once fell off the roof of a two story building wearing only socks onto a road.Was a tad drunk with a friend who since commited suicide but we thought it would be fun to climb up the spouting.lol.it wasn't that fun Nemesio...i broke 4 bones in one foot and smashed the other heal.

Ivanhoe, the dilemma does not simply consist of one post. You don't get to a dilemma until there are TWO things said, where it's not possible for them both to be true.

Some people have gotten out of the dilemma by saying jumping isn't suicide. Others have gotten out of it by saying that suicide does not automatically lead to damnation. Either route is a perfectly valid one to take, but then it's perfectly normal debating technique to see what implications flow from the route taken.

What no1 'does all the time' is present an argument that doesn't necessarily represent his own personal views. When he does this, he is trying to examine the logic of the argument and challenging people to show whether the logic fails, and if so, where.

I would prefer that he didn't insult people so much, but the vast majority of his insults are directed at people who fail to engage in the kind of logical debate he is looking for. If people attempt meaningful answers, they rarely get flamed.

Really, if you don't want to participate in this kind of thing, you should stay out of the Debates forum AND the Spirituality forum, which is an offshoot of the Debates forum.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Let's try to get this thread back on track.

Let's make a few scenarios:

Option 1: A person is in a room of a burning building. It is on
fire because of an electrical failure and not because of any malice.
The person is trapped and the flames are becoming unendurable.
They may choose to let the flames burn them to death -- an
extraordinarily pai ...[text shortened]... or things distinguishes that scenario from the remaining three
(or whatever number).

Nemesio

I wouldn't have thought that option 3 fell within the normal definition of suicide because it is the nurse that gives the injection. Suicide is death by your own hand.

I'm aware there's such a thing as 'assisted suicide', but I'm not sure this is it. Assisted suicide would be the nurse giving the needle and the substance, and saying "now, just press down here..."

It's a fine distinction and I'm don't really think that MORALLY there's much of a difference.

Originally posted by orfeo
Ivanhoe, the dilemma does not simply consist of one post. You don't get to a dilemma until there are TWO things said, where it's not possible for them both to be true.

Some people have gotten out of the dilemma by saying jumping isn't suicide. Others have gotten out of it by saying that suicide does not automatically lead to damnation. Either route is ...[text shortened]... out of the Debates forum AND the Spirituality forum, which is an offshoot of the Debates forum.

Orfeo: "What no1 'does all the time' is present an argument that doesn't necessarily represent his own personal views. When he does this, he is trying to examine the logic of the argument and challenging people to show whether the logic fails, and if so, where."

I'd rather believe the marauder himself, when he states he is "waging war". It seems more appropiate then what you are suggesting.



... and stop excusing his insulting and bullying behaviour.


By the way, we are not all as magnificent, wonderful and worth admiring as you are, so maybe you can show some benevolence ..... of course to the party who really deserves it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Orfeo: "What no1 'does all the time' is present an argument that doesn't necessarily represent his own personal views. When he does this, he is trying to examine the logic of the argument and challenging people to show whether the logic fails, and if so, where."

I'd rather believe the marauder himself, when he states he is "waging war". It seems ...[text shortened]... are, so maybe you can show some benevolence ..... of course to the party who really deserves it.

Why continually twist my words? Your pathetic personal hatred of me and others leads you to these ridiculous alliances with trash like RBHILL. I said I'd "wage war" against racism, sexism and bigotry; if you're opposed to that, just say you support such philosophies.

You can't help playing the "martyr" card, can you?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why continually twist my words? Your pathetic personal hatred of me and others leads you to these ridiculous alliances with trash like RBHILL. I said I'd "wage war" against racism, sexism and bigotry; if you're opposed to that, just say you support such philosophies.

You can't help playing the "martyr" card, can you?

You wage war against everybody who dares to disagree with you, marauder.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You wage war against everybody who dares to disagree with you, marauder.

where do you get off comparing an internet argument to waging war.

Have ya even been to war I'ho ?

Originally posted by frogstomp
where do you get off comparing an internet argument to waging war.

Have ya even been to war I'ho ?

I can see you were away for a little while. You'd better ask your family member the marauder why he used that term to describe his actions on this site against certain RHP members.

... but I guess you are not interested anymore in getting an answer to your question now you know it was he who introduced the term 😉

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I can see you were away for a little while. You'd better ask your family member the marauder why he used that term to describe his actions on this site against certain RHP members.

... but I guess you are not interested anymore in getting an answer to your question now you know it was he who introduced the term 😉

That's horse poop I'ho

What war was you in?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I can see you were away for a little while. You'd better ask your family member the marauder why he used that term to describe his actions on this site against certain RHP members.

... but I guess you are not interested anymore in getting an answer to your question now you know it was he who introduced the term 😉

Keep up the lies, Ivanhoe: that's all you're selling.

In context; Ivanhoe crying about my so-called "bullying" of RBHILL for using the term "nigger" in this forum:

Ivanhoe: Heck, if we would all act the way you do we would have an all out war on this site.


no1: War is sometimes unavoidable, Ivanhoe. As between ignoring racist, sexist and other types of bigoted comments and confronting them at the "risk" of being accused of "bullying", I choose the latter. You have made a different choice obviously.

Page 12 - "Fundamentalist Christian Intolerance" thread

Explain how I supported "waging war" against anything but racism, sexism and bigotry in general, Ivanhoe.