EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Suicide Booths Legality

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
admin
By admin | Apr 29 2015 5:30 PM
Blackflag: My view is that humans are the most interconnected, social species on the planet. We fix other people all the time, and other people fix us. For example, shopkeepers need cash, we need goods. We both fix each other. That's how society works. It's normal.

Every major life choice is merely a function of social constructs. Should I go to university? Well, university is a social construct? Should I save for my retirement? Money and retirement are social constructs. These things are socially defined and enabled and enacted, and as such, we are not making these choices on our own. Our personal decisions, in turn, affect the decisions of others as well, like it or not.

You say your future wasn't created for you? BS. Language was ready made for you. Food has been created for you. Society is there for you. You need to be there for society. It's an obligation.

That doesn't mean living your life solely for a small number of conformists. It does mean, however, living your life. There's so much more to this than individual decision making.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 30 2015 6:20 AM
My view is that humans are the most interconnected, social species on the planet. We fix other people all the time, and other people fix us. For example, shopkeepers need cash, we need goods. We both fix each other. That's how society works. It's normal.
"Fixing" people, how stupid! You can advise, be nice, and help where you can, but at the end of the day the person in question is 100% responsible for his or her own image in others eyes. Not any of our business to begin with. If you are really smart, you already know that the only people who need fixing are those who try and fix others to think and act more like they do.

Every major life choice is merely a function of social constructs. Should I go to university? Well, university is a social construct? Should I save for my retirement? Money and retirement are social constructs. These things are socially defined and enabled and enacted, and as such, we are not making these choices on our own. Our personal decisions, in turn, affect the decisions of others as well, like it or not.
You are playing on semantics now. It really does not change the argument if they are social constructs or not. It is the choice of society to create universities and the choice of individual citizens to use them. They are not mutually exclusive and non-complimentary.

You say your future wasn't created for you? BS. Language was ready made for you. Food has been created for you. Society is there for you. You need to be there for society. It's an obligation.
I was given food and was taught how to survive in the world. The only obligation I owe is to my immediate family. People have no social obligations to enslave themselves for society, which means society shouldn't have the power to force people into servitude.


That doesn't mean living your life solely for a small number of conformists. It does mean, however, living your life. There's so much more to this than individual decision making.

Most of these arguments are junk. I live life through my own eyes, with my own body, and my own mind. Humanity was privileged by the Earth, and the Earth was not built by authoritarian liberals, ignorant conformists, and the ambitious elites who wish to control others in their morally justified version of totalitarianism. Everything in my life was determined by individual choice. No exceptions to the rule. I put myself where I am, and where I am right now is a result of millions of big and small choices made over the course of my existence. I owe no one, so why should I let another own me and my decisions?

People can commit suicide if they want to commit suicide. They are not broken or defective people. They have different mindsets. Attempt to change their mindset, fine, but do not oppress their rights to act on beliefs that do not directly harm others. It is their life, their choices, and their consequences. We have a supporting role in others lives and nothing more.

Aye, your arguments are so Communist Party-esque, hard to keep my cool here!

Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 30 2015 6:25 AM
I definitely think more stuff would get accomplished, the question is really whether the ill of a loss of autonomy would outweigh the inefficiency of autonomy.
Autonomy is not less efficient. I find that societies which maximize freedom and personal choice, and allow people to live independently are more productive than counterpart societies.
How many examples can you find of a historical entity which offered new rights and liberties and had it backfire?
nzlockie
By nzlockie | Apr 30 2015 9:57 AM
Blackflag: I think it's pretty clear that Autonomy is usually less efficient. That'snot a bad thing necessarily, just a statement of fact. Autonomy has some strong positives that go with it as well - namely the productivity you've mentioned.

Don't confuse productivity with efficiency though.

As for practical examples, that's easy. Ask any parent in the world whether shopping becomes more or less efficient once kids are given the opportunity to choose their own clothes.
admin
By admin | Apr 30 2015 11:15 AM
Blackflag: You can advise, be nice, and help where you can, but at the end of the day the person in question is 100% responsible for his or her own image in others eyes.
Explain how that works in the context of racism. "Haha, loser, it's YOUR fault I'm a racist, you're responsible for your own image after all!"

If you are really smart, you already know that the only people who need fixing are those who try and fix others to think and act more like they do.
I do things that really smart people tell me to do all the time. It's called a knowledge economy. For example, I'm assuming you have not studied dentistry... but yet you probably brush your teeth, right?

It is the choice of society to create universities and the choice of individual citizens to use them.
Sure, and whether people make that choice individually is a function of that construct. Like, you can imagine a university as a namespace context containing costs and benefits, both public and private. People's choices to attend university is based on those socially held and socially shared beliefs. So although the ultimate decision rests with the individual, their decision is based entirely on the social construct of what a university means to them.

The only obligation I owe is to my immediate family.
NOBODY else helped define you as a person?

What about the guys who founded the country you live in?
The guys who defended the freedoms of that country?
And then there's the folks who provided that food to your family?
Not to mention the doctors who kept you and your family healthy?
The teachers who taught you stuff? Where would you be without school?

Pretty much everyone has an important role in society. It's not just having kids that entitles you to obligations from other people. That's a really naive view of the world. Everybody contributes something, in some way, to make our society what it is. That's the whole reason for universal social security, for example.

society shouldn't have the power to force people into servitude
I concur. Attempting to prevent people from suicide is far from servitude. If anything, suicide is more servile.

I live life through my own eyes, with my own body, and my own mind.
You do? Every single thought in your mind is yours? You just invented all these words you're saying? Because I'm pretty sure there's a LOT of social capital in that head of yours that you're stealing when you say things like that.

Everything in my life was determined by individual choice. No exceptions to the rule.
Really? You created edeb8? Or did I choose to create edeb8 and provide you with the choice to be here? Was it just your choice alone that you're here, or did I have a choice too? Individual choice, or socially shared choice? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't YOUR individual choice that has determined everything in your life.

I owe no one, so why should I let another own me and my decisions?
If nobody else on the planet existed, and it was just you, your life would be noticeably different. Other people impact on your choices FAR more than you're giving credit here. You owe everybody for the social construct in which you make decisions - you accept that social contract by being a member of that society. You can try to quit society, but I assure you choosing to leave that social contract won't make you better off.

They are not broken or defective people. They have different mindsets.
By that token we shouldn't heal anybody. "Doctor, help! I broke my arm!" ... "Why should I fix you? You're not a broken or defective person, you just have a different body!"

do not oppress their rights to act on beliefs that do not directly harm others.
Although I disagree with this on several levels, suicide is a very direct harm on others. Not just is a valuable member of society lost, and remember we are all interconnected, but also there's grievances and such to be settled. There are no rights like you mention, and even if there were, they do not apply here.

Aye, your arguments are so Communist Party-esque, hard to keep my cool here!
Suicide is a problem irrespective of political system. To the best of my knowledge, suicide is no more or less normalized under communist administrations. If anything, I would have expected it to be more, not less.

My arguments do stem from my liberal views, but I don't think attempts to prevent suicide are particularly authoritarian. That line that I'm trying to control the world as an elite is like those anarcho-capitalists who scream "neofascism!" every time somebody proposes a government subsidy or something.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Apr 30 2015 2:49 PM
Explain how that works in the context of racism. "Haha, loser, it's YOUR fault I'm a racist, you're responsible for your own image after all!"
The loser who says that needs to realize that not all people of a race share the same image. You are responsible for your own image afterall, not that you should really care for your image anyways.

I do things that really smart people tell me to do all the time. It's called a knowledge economy. For example, I'm assuming you have not studied dentistry... but yet you probably brush your teeth, right?
Out of choice, yes. You are using a lot of light examples. Somehow you are making equivalencies between brushing your teeth and providing emotional and psychological "fixing?"

Sure, and whether people make that choice individually is a function of that construct. Like, you can imagine a university as a namespace context containing costs and benefits, both public and private. People's choices to attend university is based on those socially held and socially shared beliefs. So although the ultimate decision rests with the individual, their decision is based entirely on the social construct of what a university means to them.
Societies which maximize liberties have very few shared beliefs. Societies which maximize the role of authority and conformity have many shared beliefs.
I do not know where you are going with all this social construct nonsense, it is all semantics. The ultimate choice lies with me, and how I choose to view universities lies with me.

NOBODY else helped define you as a person?

What about the guys who founded the country you live in?
The guys who defended the freedoms of that country?
And then there's the folks who provided that food to your family?
Not to mention the doctors who kept you and your family healthy?
The teachers who taught you stuff? Where would you be without school?

Nil. Obligation only exists when you choose to be obligated. I choose to not owe these people a damn thing.
If you are defined by obligation, then you are a slave. Being a servant can be pragmatic, but only when it is on your own terms.

Really? You created edeb8? Or did I choose to create edeb8 and provide you with the choice to be here? Was it just your choice alone that you're here, or did I have a choice too? Individual choice, or socially shared choice? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't YOUR individual choice that has determined everything in your life.
The second one. You chose to create edeb8 and I chose to use it. Other people can create choices for you, but that is all.
I do not see how this "Giving you a choice" nonsense ties into having obligations to society.

If nobody else on the planet existed, and it was just you, your life would be noticeably different. Other people impact on your choices FAR more than you're giving credit here. You owe everybody for the social construct in which you make decisions - you accept that social contract by being a member of that society. You can try to quit society, but I assure you choosing to leave that social contract won't make you better off.
You cannot leave a society unless you become a hermit in the wilderness. Society, according to oxford, is an aggregate grouping of people that are more or less ordered. The only society that has binding contracts are the authoritarian ones. I can interact with society when I want, and not interact with society when I want. Within a society there are smaller societies known as communities. Likewise, I can choose to interact with the community when and where I want, and not interact with the community when and where I want. That is because modern society is based on liberty and choice, not servitude and obligation.

By that token we shouldn't heal anybody. "Doctor, help! I broke my arm!" ... "Why should I fix you? You're not a broken or defective person, you just have a different body!"
False equivalency between emotional "fixing" and physical "fixing." If someone has the mindset that they are fine with a broken arm though, then in essence they are fine. < That is the basis of many renowned philosophies.

Although I disagree with this on several levels, suicide is a very direct harm on others. Not just is a valuable member of society lost, and remember we are all interconnected, but also there's grievances and such to be settled. There are no rights like you mention, and even if there were, they do not apply here.
Wow, because association totally isn't a choice. The guy's dead, and he did so under the allowance of justified liberty. It isn't like there are not consequences to others peoples action, but it isn't causing physical harm, therefore IDGAF. Whenever I want to make an independent choice, I shouldn't have to worry on whether or not it is in the interests of others. After all, they chose to invest themselves in me.

admin
By admin | Apr 30 2015 4:39 PM
Blackflag: The loser who says that needs to realize that not all people of a race share the same image.
So what? He's entitled to the view - you can't tell him what he needs to realize any more than I can tell somebody why they shouldn't commit suicide.

You are responsible for your own image afterall
In that case, that makes him less responsible for socially constructed views of race, according to your view. So why do you believe its the fault of racial minorities, for example, that some people are racist against them?

not that you should really care for your image anyways
I think at the point where you live in a country infamous for hanging and lynching people of other races, this is probably not the thing to say in this context. "Meh, these black people shouldn't care that they're subhuman slaves..."

Out of choice, yes.
Then you are choosing something that somebody else has chosen to tell you. You are following the lead of somebody smarter in this field than you. This is a simple example of a knowledge transaction in the knowledge economy, where knowledge is socially shared and constructed. People choose things on the basis of what they know, and what they know is largely socially-held capital that doesn't belong to anybody, just exists in the knowledge economy.

You are using a lot of light examples. Somehow you are making equivalencies between brushing your teeth and providing emotional and psychological "fixing?"
No, I'm making equivalencies between the choice to prevent suicides and the choice to brush teeth. The difference is subtle, but important. You're arguing people have no right to impose choices on others. I'm saying this is a fundamental part of the social construct that cannot be avoided, and is indeed a GOOD thing that helps society. It affects everything from our personal healthcare decisions, like choosing to brush our teeth, to social healthcare policy decisions, like choosing to prevent suicides.

Societies which maximize liberties have very few shared beliefs. Societies which maximize the role of authority and conformity have many shared beliefs.
What you've just proved is that the structure of society impacts strongly on beliefs and choices.

I find this is actually rarely true in practice, diversity of thought is about even, it's just the oppression of thought that's different. You'd probably agree that a relatively anarchist nation cannot maximize the role of authority - concentrated power simply does that better, right? Let's take North Korea as an example of a fairly authoritarian nation, and although the USA has few substantive liberties, I think that can be a useful example of a relatively libertarian society. You honestly think North Korea has more shared beliefs than the USA? No, it's just that you don't hear those narratives until North Koreans escape. But they exist. You can see the same effect with formerly authoritarian societies - was Albert Speer's thinking the same as Hermann Goering? Of course not.

I do not know where you are going with all this social construct nonsense, it is all semantics. The ultimate choice lies with me, and how I choose to view universities lies with me.

Never assume that something is semantic. It's an important point; your decision to attend "university" was not defined by you, but by "university" the socially held namespace object.

Where I'm going with it is that all your choices, including university, are not defined by you. They are defined by the society at large. If you go to university, you contribute to society's view of it. If you do not go, then you also contribute. Like it or not, you are a part of society, and you affect (in some small way) the choices of others, just as they affect you. You may believe the choice is ultimately yours, but I challenge you this - give me one reason to attend or not attend university that is in no way based on the beliefs of others. You'll be surprised. For example, does university cost too much? Well that depends on other people's beliefs about currency, something that has no real non-belief value anyway. Does it improve your job prospects? Well, that depends on other people's beliefs about the value of education etc. Ultimately every choice comes down to decisions other people have made, or more rarely, that the environment has imposed upon us.

Obligation only exists when you choose to be obligated.
I'd like to see you buy a pineapple.
"This pineapple costs $2, thanks!"
"I choose not to be obligated to pay you. I make this choice on my own terms because I refuse to be indebted."
"That's called theft"
"Nah, I'm just exercising my rights and maximizing your liberties. By paying you, I would be your slave."
"You're not making any sense - you chose to buy the pineapple, so you have an obligation to pay me."
"I have no obligations to anybody except myself and possibly my immediate family."
The comedy writes itself.

You chose to create edeb8 and I chose to use it. Other people can create choices for you, but that is all.
I can do more than that. I can actually influence your choice. For example, I could have made edeb8 more useless than it is, and then you might have hated it. I could have forced you off the site on a whim and no choice you make could have prevented it. These kinds of choices, in turn, would influence how others see you, edeb8, and other sites as well. The world is a very chaotic and interconnected place.

I do not see how this "Giving you a choice" nonsense ties into having obligations to society.
Giving choices is functionally equivalent to giving rights. It is the work of others that provide you with these rights - you are not 100% responsible for your life at this point - other people and their choices made a HUGE contribution.

The only society that has binding contracts are the authoritarian ones.
OK. Clearly you're familiar with the concept of a contract but not a social contract. You may want to look it up. In fact the whole point of social contract theory was that it provided an ALTERNATIVE to authoritarianism during the Age of Enlightenment, and is the basis for every western liberal democracy in the world today. The point is, we all cede some of our rights so others in society can cede theirs. For example, we cede our NATURAL right to kill each other, in exchange for a SOCIAL CONTRACT limiting that right between ourselves. By ceding these rights, we maximize other rights - for example, the right to life. You agree to the social contract by taking part in society - which of course, as a human being, you can't help. That's a VERY brief overview of a philosophy that took hundreds of years to develop. You may want to look it up.

This page can explain it better than I can, with the context being the US constitution: http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm

False equivalency between emotional "fixing" and physical "fixing."
How is it false? A broken mind and a broken body can both be equally harmful.

That is the basis of many renowned philosophies.
I'm intrigued. There certainly are many philosophies that agree with bodily autonomy, but I can't think of any that agree suicide maximizes autonomy. Please, elaborate.

It isn't like there are not consequences to others peoples action, but it isn't causing physical harm, therefore IDGAF.
Still arguing about that pineapple, are we? Let's check in...
"I don't care whom you think you owe obligations to - that's my pineapple, give it back unless you want to purchase it."
"My actions are not causing physical harm to other people, therefore no, I shall eat this pineapple when and where I please."
"You have to pay me though. I won't sell you this pineapple unless you pay for it."
"It's not my concern whether potential payments to you are in your interest, ok? After all, YOU CHOSE to invest this pineapple in me!"
"Making it available for purchase is not an investment into you!"
"Of course it was. I simply took it under an allowance of justified liberty."
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Page: 12Most Recent