Hm, I expected him to accidentally kick him off the ledge to the outside and murder him, thus preventing suicide.or something like this:
or something like this:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
what the fuckРоссия
People should just take a hot bath and cut their arteries. Certain death, not very painful, and easy to clean up for those who find you.If I were to kill myself I would at least do it with some style. Like jumping out of an airplane or some shit.
If I were to kill myself I would at least do it with some style. Like jumping out of an airplane or some shit.
or something like this:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Because chunks of meat on the ground are really stylish. Selfish and vain, even in death.Well at least it would be more fun for myself.
Well at least it would be more fun for myself.
That's true. However, it's kind of absurd, because fun is probably the last thing on the mind of people who are going to kill themselves.
I would make a joke about how I would kill myself, but I don't want the FBI kicking down my door thinking I'm a unstable psychopath
People should just take a hot bath and cut their arteries. Certain death, not very painful, and easy to clean up for those who find you.And remember, kids: cut vertically.
Self-immolation or gunshot to the heart.
Worst choices ever.
Suicide is the choice of lazy people. Worst thing you can do tbh. No wonder religion forbids it.What.the.fuck.
If you feel like shit and want to kill yourself, don't do it. There are much better ways to waste your life. Since we live in corrupted society, it's always better to try to kill some major douchebag instead (big shot criminal for example). Even if you fail, you'll be a hero to some people. By killing yourself, you'll just be loser in eyes of everyone.
Yeah, this is me calling out to people who want to kill themselves, to try to kill someone else instead.
Suicide is the choice of lazy people. Worst thing you can do tbh. No wonder religion forbids it.i think someone deserves new forum title :D
If you feel like shit and want to kill yourself, don't do it. There are much better ways to waste your life. Since we live in corrupted society, it's always better to try to kill some major douchebag instead (big shot criminal for example). Even if you fail, you'll be a hero to some people. By killing yourself, you'll just be loser in eyes of everyone.
Yeah, this is me calling out to people who want to kill themselves, to try to kill someone else instead.
Suicide is not the choice of the lazy people, but the sick people.
A healthy person is incapable of killing himself, it needs a mental disorder to be actually capable of doing it. At least from what I read.
There were some harsh times for me when I was much younger. Was seriously considering suicide. Yet I never managed to pull it off. By your definition I don't have any mental disorder. Then why do people like to label me as insane?He said that you need a mental disorder to be able to commit suicide, not that everyone with mental disorders can commit a suicide. All cats are animals, not all animals are cats.
Suicide is not the choice of the lazy people, but the sick people.I doubt it'd require a mental disorder, don't think I'd have a hard time killing myself I truly believed I'd not enjoy any remaining days in my life regardlessly. Personally shooting myself in the back of the head would be my preferred suicide method.
A healthy person is incapable of killing himself, it needs a mental disorder to be actually capable of doing it. At least from what I read.
Imho, what he did in that video was a terrible way to deal with this situation. If that was me, it would make me want to kill myself even more. I imagine they immediately locked him up in a psych ward, but preventing suicide by force is not really a good idea imo. Is it better to be alive against your will and totally miserable, or able to make the decision to end your own life (and your misery) when it gets to be too much for you? Honestly, I don't know why suicide is seen as such a bad thing. I understand the desire to preserve the lives of your loved ones, but from the suicidal persons perspective, this just feels like a trap that prevents them from doing what seems to them to be the best solution. If you're willing to kill yourself you don't CARE if you're dead.
I know in some cases people get better and then its great because hey, they can live a good life now and they didnt have to die. But some people dont get better. Some people dont care to wait until they can. Some people don't WANT to get better. Some people dont have anything to even "fix" but just dont want to deal with life if they dont have to.
My ex was forced against her will into a mental institution by her family right when we started dating because of previous suicide attempts, a self-harm addiction, eating disorders, etc., and she genuinely enjoyed the experience. So I'm not saying places like this are bad, they're good at what they do in a lot of cases. But its pretty hard to make a permanent impact on someone. In most serious cases, the issues will just come back.
If someone you love tries to kill themselves, I understand that you WILL try to stop them and that this definitely seems like the right thing to do, I've done it and I feel like I did the right thing, its normal for us to think "death = bad, alive = good." But from the perspective of the other person, this idea that suicide is terrible just contributes to the feeling of helpessness. It's like, "I hate my life and myself and I can't fix it, nor can I take the only way out because then I'll hurt everyone I love."
I realize some of the stuff I said is a bit contradictory, but thats probably due to the fact that what a suicidal person genuinely desires and thinks is best for them contradicts what humans typically feel to be "right," so its hard to give my stance (which im not entirely sure of) coherently without flip flopping between both sides of the issue.
I strongly believe that people who commit suicide are the only people who actually believe in humanity and ideal human values and stuff like that. When they realise how corrupted whole human race, how full of shit human society is, they can't cope with it and they pull the trigger. Others evolve into proper humans, who don't care about each other yet somehow function together.This such a messed up fucking view, gawd. Your posts in this thread alone are fairly insane, just saying, to answer your question..
I know I am a heartless, cold bastard who doesn't have strong emotions and has never even been depressed
Took too long to draw his gun.
0/10 unimpressive
I don't get suicide, how can nothing be preferred over anything? I know I am a heartless, cold bastard who doesn't have strong emotions and has never even been depressed, but what could possibly drive people in wealthy countries to decide to end their lives? Doesn't compute at all with me.
I've been deep down in depression, life feels truly meaningless, and everything is just shit, and in general life is not worth living, it's actually just a total mess of pain. You should try it before you talk like you know shit.
Well, be happy you are of such an unburdened mind and enjoy life. Don't you think if you would get it, you would maybe also like to go? There lurks danger, you have been warned.
I've been deep down in depression, life feels truly meaningless, and everything is just shit, and in general life is not worth living, it's actually just a total mess of pain. You should try it before you talk like you know shit.Some people aren't capable of enough self-pity to get depressed.
Obviously if you're naive enough to fully internalize the fairytales you're bombarded with in childhood, it's going to be rough when you run into this little thing called "reality". I find it hilarious how these weaklings then feel "betrayed" by the world, because they're narcissitic enough to feel entitled to this idealistic fantasy that only ever existed in their imagination, as opposed to feeling humbled and fascinated by the real complexity of life. The reaction of "boohoo the world is full of evil, let us mourn like useless cunts" angers me, just because you're not the center of a disneyworld fantasy doesn't make the world iredeemably evil, unless again you're a completely self-centered narcissist. If your measure of what the world should be like is still based on the perspective of a prepubescent, probably sheltered kid, then no, you haven't matured or grown up at all. The vast majority of the world looks into the "abyss" on a daily basis, and they just get the fuck on with their lives, finding happiness and love where they can. You're not any more particularly perceptive or insightful than the average person, who noticed this disconnect between wishfull emotional bullshit and reality a long time ago, just more whiny and self-pitying.Just because some people who kill themselves fit this description doesn't mean everyone does, if I'd be sufficiently sick, unable to enjoy myself, in constant pain, and knowing I'd die soonish with no chance of getting better anyhow I sure as fuck wouldn't think twice about just getting it over with.
You know what, Oberyn. Recently Google bought Boston Dynamics, creators of BigDog robot. Now they are working on this:How exactly will that thing change anything?
So all this chat is a bit pointless right now and it will be completely pointless in the future.
Real complexity of life is going to be booted and exchanged with those fairy tale values very soon. When it comes to gaming, pricks like you are already forbidden to play certain games because Kinect don't like players who swear a lot.
I didn't even mention suicide, that was more aimed at the people who feel depressed or suicidal because "the world sucks", as opposed to very concrete reasons like "my entire family got killed" or "I have a painful, terminal disease". I'm totally in favour of the choice of euthanasia for the later, for example.Ah, well in that case, I apologize, I merely thought you meant suicide as that was what the general topic seemed to be about. Being depressed sucks and all, but really, the vast majority of people don't deserve anyones pity, and while slitting your wrist will stop the pain the vast majority would be better off accepting the position they're in and moving on.
Of course Leshma, "come the revolution". I'm not sure how exactly robots are going to make humanity fulfill your ridiculously unrealistic criteria for what is "good", but whatevs, I'm sure you'll work out the details. And oooooh, Kinect gaming forbids swearing? Zomg, such massive strides! The entire way people over the world relate to and live with each other will magically morph, because a gaming service for priviledged first worlders forbids swearing. *Golf clap*
Mine? Well guess what, I'm not that original. It's not mine, it's universal stuff projected on millions of kids around the world. Obviously, those who did it are in charge of things. Not the likes of you, whos biggest achievement in life to swear at someone over the internet.
Depression from just general existential malaise is inextricably linked with ego, to a certain extent it is entirely a matter of self-pity. A bit of jealousy maybe, looking at others, imagining that they are well-adjusted, happy-go-lucky, when the truth is everyone has their shit to deal with. That generalized pain and anxiety because the "world sucks" is common to most people, if only at certain points in their life. It's not unique or special. It's the lot of humanity, but some people apparently still base their expectations on what their 12 year old self imagined the world should be like, so of course they probably feel it's "unfair". And that's completely ignoring that for a lot of the world that whole experience of sheltered childhood doesn't even exist, and they are more mature and pragmatic in their world view at that age than many adults who still adhere to fancy sounding bullshit because it makes them feel nice inside, regardless of how little sense it makes.
Because living in denial is so mature. Do you know the main reason why teenagers realize that the world sucks? Because they don't have a lot of investments made yet that they can lose. They can assess the world in an unbiased way. But then they find someone they love, have children with them, settle down, buy a couple of cars, maybe a vacation house, etc., and suddenly the world doesn't suck so much anymore. Except it still does, they just reduced the limits of their view of the world to their garden fence.
Yes, totally, teenagers are the most unbiased and rational people ever. They aren't well known for being hormone ridden idiots with no experience of life, easily led and manipulated, not to mention not posessing physically fully developped brains.
Seriously though, "teenagers can assess the world in an unbiased way", has to be one of the most hilarious standalone comments ever.
Never was, never will.
About suicide, it's true that I wanted to do it as a kid. Reason is as I stated. Was believing in right, good, fairytales, was raised like that. Wanted to help everyone, never hurt anyone, be as good as humanly possible. Then, when I was 13 years old I discovered nasty side of humanity. Was seriously depressed, couldn't live with that.
From my experience I have learned a one good lesson. If you ever decide to commit suicide - make sure you have chosen the right path to way out of the life, otherwise you risk being left crippled for the rest of your life.If you really wanted to commit suicide and being crippled didn't suddenly make you love your life you could probably still manage to do so.(click to show/hide)
Transhumanists are funny.What makes them funny?
From my experience I have learned a one good lesson. If you ever decide to commit suicide - make sure you have chosen the right path to way out of the life, otherwise you risk being left crippled for the rest of your life.how do you know?(click to show/hide)
What makes them funny?
edit: I just looked at the wiki page for transhumanism, just scroll down to the "debate" section, all the points I've made in the above post criticizing the concept are there already, in much more developped form. There's also links to articles and books on the subject.No thanks, read a couple of points and they were super crappy. "omg u r playing god" and the whole nine yards.
Not really anything to answer to that, except you obviously didn't read very much if your only takeaway of the critics was "omg ur playing god". You still haven't adressed any of the criticisms I brought up, beyond saying that they had nothing to do with transhumanism (when they obviously do, or there wouldn't be the exact same criticisms of the fucking wiki page of all things) and then dismissing it as worries of a religious nature. So basically just empty strawmen and no substance.Funny you should say that, considering you're attacking straw transhumanism. There was nothing else to take away from the wiki criticisms of transhumanism - not surprisingly, as there's no rational reason to be critical of it. I haven't addressed any of your criticism because, like I said, it's attacking straw transhumanism. Nothing to address. But feel free to be more specific than "the wiki has the criticism too."
If you really wanted to commit suicide and being crippled didn't suddenly make you love your life you could probably still manage to do so.Unless you're paralyzed after that attempt.
how do you know?Don't ask.
Transhumanists are as varied as any other ideology, there are socialist transhumanists, libertarian transhumanists, anarchic transhumanists, etc etc. They have nothing in common beyond "we need to change people". They differ in their methods and their goals. Do you think changing humanity into something different is a goal unto itself, or merely a tool for various political and societal ideologies? Your "Transhumanism is just ****" is as nonsensical as saying "Feminism is just the idea of treating women equally". When you actually get down to it it's much more nuanced and fragmented, usually along narrow, rigid, dogmatic ideological lines.So, you're basically arguing for me against yourself? That is exactly my point. Transhumanism is what I said it is, but there are different sub-branches and your criticism applies to some of them, yes, but not to transhumanism itself.
The idea that transhumanism is beyond all reasonable criticism already marks you as dogmatic, but sure I'll give you an example, one that I alraedy brought up and is listed on the wiki and you just chose to conveniently ignore. Just one consequence would be the creation of a two-tier caste system of haves and have-nots, of one group of literally genetically "superior" people and another of "average" ones, by itself that is already a huge fucking red flag. And obviously the ones who already are on the top of the social pyramid would overwhelmingly benefit. Anyone who is familiar with human nature and history would see why this could be a problem, "rationally".Again, you are arguing against straw transhumanism. Creating a caste system is one of the things to be careful of, but it isn't a necessary, predestined outcome. The basis of transhumanism does not say a caste system is necessary. For example, if everyone could be augmented, it wouldn't happen.
Oh you mean if expensive cutting edge technology that is being researched and developped by private corporations entirely devoted to profit could somehow be extended for free to all people regardless of wealth or position in the social hierarchy, it wouldn't happen? Well I'm fucking relieved, nothing to worry about then.You are confusing ideology with practicality, first of all. Two different problems to tackle. Second, not all of the technology that transhumanist hopes cling on are developed by private corporations entirely devoted to profit.
Really, so which technology's research and development are not linked to private corporations? There's this thing called "funding", you may have heard of it, it's usually done by people investing and expecting a return on that investment. It's not charity for the benefit of humankind.
Well, few ideologies are vulnerable to criticism if you strip them from all practicalities. I mean, communism is a wonderful idea, it just doesn't seem to work. So is it a good ideology nonetheless? Most ideologies define themselves as a good thing, even when not explicitly. You can't really argue against good intentions, and you can only derive bad consequences from the application of said "good ideology" if you start invoking practicalities.Of course, but you have to decide which you are arguing against: the "what" or the "how." In the case of transhumanism, the "what" is a no-brainer, but the "how" is an open question. And also in the case of transhumanism, it varies greatly because there are a lot of different approaches, technologies and ideologies. Arguing against a particular approach or ideology does nothing to undermine transhumanism as a whole, just as finding some retarded atheists does nothing to undermine atheism.
In this sense, Xant is arguing like people that say "the URSS was not communist". In some sense they are right, but a debate based entirely on the definition of ideas unsullied by the contingencies of reality doesn't seem to be very productive to me.
Oh dear, Xant vs Oberyn
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Of course, but you have to decide which you are arguing against: the "what" or the "how." In the case of transhumanism, the "what" is a no-brainer, but the "how" is an open question. And also in the case of transhumanism, it varies greatly because there are a lot of different approaches, technologies and ideologies. Arguing against a particular approach or ideology does nothing to undermine transhumanism as a whole, just as finding some retarded atheists does nothing to undermine atheism.
But then, the word "transhumanism" loses all substance and arguing for or against it is just arguing a set of techniques individually. And I'm also not completely convinced by your analogy. Atheism is much easier to define with respect to reality. You can easily say someone is atheist and have a consensus around that observation, yet you can't do that with transhumanism, because it is so easy to just dodge the labeling and say your are part of another branch.No, it doesn't lose all substance, nor do I see why you couldn't say someone is a transhumanist.
No, it doesn't lose all substance, nor do I see why you couldn't say someone is a transhumanist.On the base of this definition the whole discussion is a bit obsolete because humanity lives the idea of transhumanism since thousands of years. What ever technologie was invented it always was used to improve the human condition. from weaving clothes to increase your ability to withstand cold and a stick to improve your reach to teethprotheses, artificial joints and antibiotics. So the evolution of a specie's technologie is part of its evolution and will always be used to its better adaptation to the invironment.
Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies.
That is what it means to be a transhumanist, nothing more, nothing less.
Or, another definition: Transhumanism is the position that it's ethical to radically improve the human condition using technology.
So what is hard about this? It seems excruciatingly simple to me. This is the core of transhumanism. Anything more than this is a branch of it.
Just as the lack of belief in a god is the core of atheism and anything more is a branch of it.
They are "funny" if they think they are a new movement.And you are "retarded" if you ate spaghetti today.
And you are "retarded" if you ate spaghetti today.:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:Just thought I'd say something completely random that has nothing to do with anything, based on no facts and with no relevance to the topic at hand. Isn't that what we're doing?
And you are "retarded" if you ate spaghetti today.
No, it doesn't lose all substance, nor do I see why you couldn't say someone is a transhumanist.
Transhumanism is a cultural and intellectual movement that believes we can, and should, improve the human condition through the use of advanced technologies.
That is what it means to be a transhumanist, nothing more, nothing less.
Or, another definition: Transhumanism is the position that it's ethical to radically improve the human condition using technology.
So what is hard about this? It seems excruciatingly simple to me. This is the core of transhumanism. Anything more than this is a branch of it.
Just as the lack of belief in a god is the core of atheism and anything more is a branch of it.
Okay but I don't see how you could have an interesting debate of transhumanism without delving into those techniques/technology you are referring to in your definition. I believe that's what most people will criticize.Transhumanism wasn't created so people could have interesting debates. It is what it is. The topic is not called "debate transhumanism." It's something Oberyn brought up, criticizing transhumanism as a whole for some views that some transhumanists might have. The usual debates regarding it are "is life extension/immortality ethical", "should we play god" and "we'll lose our humanity!"
Also, isn't transhumanism more precisely about improving humans themselves by modifying them, rather than simply improving their living conditions, which we have been doing since forever as ultrakil said ?
Transhumanism wasn't created so people could have interesting debates. It is what it is. The topic is not called "debate transhumanism." It's something Oberyn brought up, criticizing transhumanism as a whole for some views that some transhumanists might have. The usual debates regarding it are "is life extension/immortality ethical", "should we play god" and "we'll lose our humanity!"
Then maybe you should discuss the questions that are actually interesting. For instance, what makes you think there would be no social tensions resulting from early transhumanistic technology becoming available commercially?That's like me asking you to randomly discuss the class balance in MeT and why there wouldn't be social tensions after nerfing the warlock.
Not everyone thinks that way. Some hardcore Christians, for example.
That's like me asking you to randomly discuss the class balance in MeT and why there wouldn't be social tensions after nerfing the warlock.
I'm not sure what you're not understanding, here -- again, I did not bring transhumanism up. I didn't start, nor was I ever involved in, a discussion about the practicality of certain transhumanist goals. What makes you think I think there would be no social tensions resulting from early transhumanistic technology becoming available commercially?
Creating a caste system is one of the things to be careful of, but it isn't a necessary, predestined outcome. The basis of transhumanism does not say a caste system is necessary. For example, if everyone could be augmented, it wouldn't happen.
Nope, it's not a definition devoid of all practicalities or application.
What is the practical meaning of "improving" or "technology" in the definition ?im·prove verb \im-ˈprüv\
"Communism is an ideology that considers all people as equal, regardless of race, sex, social position, etc.., and that they all deserve access to the basic neccessities of life". Using that definition only a completely irrational person would be against communism.