Syne Wrote:Are you telling me you're unaware of things like the lack of tone in text and Poe's law? Why would brevity alone obviously imply levity? Brevity being the soul of wit doesn't imply that all brief things are witty. I don't know your posting style nor idiosyncrasies. And if you were "somewhat" serious, my reply stands. Otherwise, you could leave it at "tongue in cheek", and not feel the need to assert some misplaced characterization.
I'm aware of all of those things, Syne, although I had to look up Poe's law. I'm also aware that I can normally discern levity when it's intended. I might make a mistake in that regard sometimes, but not often.
With regard to Poe's Law - I think you'll find, when reading most definitions, that the quality of the observer who doesn't recognise levity for what it is even when patently obvious, is the target.
Basically, if I've told you it was somewhat tongue in cheek, then stop bloody arguing about silly things and deal with it.
Quote:Do you equate religions that encourage suicide bombers with other religions?
What sort of question is this? I'm afraid you'll have to narrow that one down a little.
Equate what? Quality, intent, the fact they're all religions, what?
Quote:I provided citation to support what I said, so how is that a gross generalization? Are you talking about the decreased suicide rates for blacks? I would posit that has something to do with the increased rate in homicide among that demographic. External threat to life has a way of prompting survival instinct.
Side note: The suicide rate among blacks (in the USA) has increased dramatically since the 1950's.
I'll leave that with you to digest. Try to think beyond homicide rates and consider the demographic position of the Negro population within society.
Quote:Did I say depression was always the root cause of suicide? I just gave Zin a link to 6 reasons for suicide, depression being the most common.
And here we go., Someone finds something on the interwebs and posts it as proof positive for their opinion. Of course suicide is linked to depression, Syne. Like death is related to car accidents.
However, with regard to the latter, far more attention is paid to the question of what causes car accidents.
People commit suicide because they're depressed? Duh.
I asked you to think of depression as a symptom rather than as a malady in itself. You haven't done so.
Zin has also been digging around the concept, but you're so far steadfastly ignoring it.
Quote:So the world is overpopulated? At NYC's density, the world's population could live in Texas. Now I'm sure things seem pretty crowded, living on an island in the UK, but that's a rather provincial view of things. I would guess, based on your cavalier attitude toward life, that you do live in a culture that approves of suicide.
Slightly OT (although it's probably a root reason for several factors with regard to suicide rates), I only mentioned it as a reason for my... cavalier attitude.
Of course the world is overpopulated. We have issues with resources, environmental damage, and the rapid depopulation of all other life forms, and conflict resulting from all of the preceding (particularly resource competition). Saying the world isn't overpopulated because the entire human population would fit into Texas is so utterly ridiculous and irrelevant to the issue that the word "cavalier" doesn't even begin to describe the lack of thought put into that statement.
You know, I've never heard a cogent argument as to why human life is so valuable we have to fill the planet to its breaking point, but people cling to the notion anyway.
Whatever value we possess as a species could be achieved with a tenth of the numbers (or less). Mention that, though, and most get positively religious in terms of their capacity for logical thought. They start saying things like "it doesn't matter because we'd all fit in Texas".
Lastly, I'm not in the UK. Rather than living on a crowded island, I live in on an underpopulated (according to some) continent. Rather radical difference.
Interesting that you use the word "provincial", though, when describing someone you thought was European. Very interesting indeed.
Syne Wrote:Are you telling me you're unaware of things like the lack of tone in text and Poe's law? Why would brevity alone obviously imply levity? Brevity being the soul of wit doesn't imply that all brief things are witty. I don't know your posting style nor idiosyncrasies. And if you were "somewhat" serious, my reply stands. Otherwise, you could leave it at "tongue in cheek", and not feel the need to assert some misplaced characterization.
I'm aware of all of those things, Syne, although I had to look up Poe's law. I'm also aware that I can normally discern levity when it's intended. I might make a mistake in that regard sometimes, but not often.
With regard to Poe's Law - I think you'll find, when reading most definitions, that the quality of the observer who doesn't recognise levity for what it is even when patently obvious, is the target.
Basically, if I've told you it was somewhat tongue in cheek, then stop bloody arguing about silly things and deal with it.
Are you yet another person who likes to try dictating the terms of a discussion? You're the one who decided to cast erroneous obtuseness aspersions. More of the same is not going to allay criticism for your ad hominem insinuations. Like I said, if you'd have left it at "tongue in cheek", I would have happily accepted that. But since you can't seem to stop your attempts at poisoning the well, it's ridiculous to assume I would stop criticizing you for obviously fallacious arguments. As long as you insist on continuing such fallacies, you can deal with the repercussions like a big boy...instead of trying to hide from your own insults with JK.
Quote:
Quote:I provided citation to support what I said, so how is that a gross generalization? Are you talking about the decreased suicide rates for blacks? I would posit that has something to do with the increased rate in homicide among that demographic. External threat to life has a way of prompting survival instinct.
Side note: The suicide rate among blacks (in the USA) has increased dramatically since the 1950's.
I'll leave that with you to digest. Try to think beyond homicide rates and consider the demographic position of the Negro population within society.
And? LBJ's welfare expansion in the 60s helped usher in the change from less than 20% black babies born to single mothers in the 50s to over 72% in the 2000s.
Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide. - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.
And in case you weren't aware:
The number of suicides increased among all racial groups except for black males, who saw an 8 percent decline in suicide rate from 10.5 to 9.7 per 100,000 between 1999 and 2014. - http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/201...n_the_u_s/
The rising violence was driven by an increase in the murders of black men, and by an increase in the number of gun murders. At least 900 more black men were killed in 2015 than in 2014, according to FBI data. - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...i-increase
Quote:
Quote:Did I say depression was always the root cause of suicide? I just gave Zin a link to 6 reasons for suicide, depression being the most common.
And here we go., Someone finds something on the interwebs and posts it as proof positive for their opinion. Of course suicide is linked to depression, Syne. Like death is related to car accidents.
However, with regard to the latter, far more attention is paid to the question of what causes car accidents.
People commit suicide because they're depressed? Duh.
I asked you to think of depression as a symptom rather than as a malady in itself. You haven't done so.
Zin has also been digging around the concept, but you're so far steadfastly ignoring it.
And? Aside from your fallacious incredulity of, what, anything on the internet, who said depression wasn't a symptom of an underlying problem? You keep arguing strawmen you create whole cloth. Why don't you start asking some questions, instead of assuming completely erroneous things? Now if you have some specific study or theory you'd like to discuss, by all means, let's have it. Otherwise your criticisms are not only strawmen but completely vacuous to boot.
Quote:
Quote:So the world is overpopulated? At NYC's density, the world's population could live in Texas... I would guess, based on your cavalier attitude toward life, that you do live in a culture that approves of suicide.
Slightly OT (although it's probably a root reason for several factors with regard to suicide rates), I only mentioned it as a reason for my... cavalier attitude.
Of course the world is overpopulated. We have issues with resources, environmental damage, and the rapid depopulation of all other life forms, and conflict resulting from all of the preceding (particularly resource competition). Saying the world isn't overpopulated because the entire human population would fit into Texas is so utterly ridiculous and irrelevant to the issue that the word "cavalier" doesn't even begin to describe the lack of thought put into that statement.
You know, I've never heard a cogent argument as to why human life is so valuable we have to fill the planet to its breaking point, but people cling to the notion anyway.
Whatever value we possess as a species could be achieved with a tenth of the numbers (or less). Mention that, though, and most get positively religious in terms of their capacity for logical thought. They start saying things like "it doesn't matter because we'd all fit in Texas".
Extinction has occurred throughout history. Why do people arbitrarily separate anthropogenic causes from natural ones? Ever heard of invasive species? Where is that "peak oil" doomsayers have predicted should have already come and gone several times? How do you propose stopping China from its massive pollution that dwarfs that of any other country? The fact that the world population could fit live in Texas (at the density of NYC) tells us that there's plenty of room that could be made for wildlife, crops, and resource mining...without any restrictions on human population, especially considering the decreasing European and Japanese population replacement rates. If you can't see that, you are not only obtuse but probably just seeking to justify your cavalier attitude toward human life.
What "breaking point"? This is often predicted but never realized. This is a bogeyman to justify callousness. Talk about the value "as a species" is how fascists justify mass murder.
Syne Wrote:Are you yet another person who likes to try dictating the terms of a discussion?
Really, Syne? You're levelling that as an accusation at me?
Looking back, it appears this started because I tried to tell you that my initial comments were lighthearted. You've spent quite some time arguing about that since then. My guess is you're not going to quit anytime soon.
Perhaps your entire stance here is the result of you being offended because I was initially insulting to Muslim suicide bombers. Perhaps you buy into this whole "respect" thing we're having pushed upon us, here in the west.
Here's my take on that - shove it. Some things deserve to be insulted, humorously or otherwise, and if you prefer to throw a blanket over everything in order to avoid insulting anyone, anywhere, then you, I'm afraid, are rapidly losing any respect I might have for you.
Now, go ahead and give me the internet 101 response to that.
Quote:You're the one who decided to cast erroneous obtuseness aspersions
Tell me, Syne, exactly what are erroneous obtuseness aspersions?
"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,
now thats running through your head, try something more atrocious...
Erroneous obtuseness might be enough to twist your brain,
but add the word aspersions and you just might be in pain!"
Sounds like Julie Andrews should be doing little twirls and singing it in the rain to an appropriate 50's musical tune. A couple of small children in sailor suits looking on in awe.
Still not picking up on tone, Syne? See if you can guess my facial expression after reading the above.
I'm rapidly garnering the impression you'd prefer to tell people what they were thinking, so I won't spoil your fun by simply describing my smile.
Quote:More of the same is not going to allay criticism for your ad hominem insinuations. Like I said, if you'd have left it at "tongue in cheek", I would have happily accepted that. But since you can't seem to stop your attempts at poisoning the well, it's ridiculous to assume I would stop criticizing you for obviously fallacious arguments. As long as you insist on continuing such fallacies, you can deal with the repercussions like a big boy...instead of trying to hide from your own insults with JK.
No, Syne, I don't believe you would have 'happily left it at that". The obvious reason for that being... well, you quite simply have not.
I don't remember any ad hominem either. Perhaps I missed something. Actually, I can't really discern any reason at all for that whole quoted paragraph.
"Obviously fallacious arguments", "Like a big boy", "continuing such fallacies"... just go ahead and say you think I'm an idiot, Syne.
At the very least, you'd probably save some wear and tear on your thesaurus.
Quote:I provided citation to support what I said, so how is that a gross generalization?
The gross generalisation, Syne, is you saying "depression is the major cause for suicide".
Citations have little to do with it.
Quote:And? LBJ's welfare expansion in the 60s helped usher in the change from less than 20% black babies born to single mothers in the 50s to over 72% in the 2000s.
Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide. - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.
You actually going to go for a swim, Syne, or are you going to just continue getting your toes wet?
Quote:And in case you weren't aware:
Two articles, one from Root.com (says it all, really) and the other a guardian article, which speaks of FBI data regarding murder rates among blacks. Not suicides, I can't see the link you're trying to make there. Unless, of course, they're not committing suicide because they're getting murdered before they have a chance to?
I should make a quick note here, for your benefit. That last was tongue in cheek, again.
Poe's law, or your lack of perception, whatever.
A few points: Firstly, I said since the 1950's. An overall trend among black people.
That very same article adds that rates among black teenage girls have increased over the same period. I've read several others noting an increase among the over-50's in general, which your article fails to mention.
So one would imagine, without doing any specific research, that the overall trend regarding suicide rates among black people since the 1950's is still... upward?
Here's another little tidbit for you - prior to the 1950's, the rate of suicide among black people (in the USA) was significantly lower than whites, regardless of age or gender.
Quote:And? Aside from your fallacious incredulity of, what, anything on the internet
No, Syne. Not anything. Just your articles, so far. And, of course, your comments.
Although I have to admit I do scrutinise most things I read very carefully. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "fallacious incredulity", though. Firstly, the word "incredulity" isn't really a good description of how I approach most written things, and, secondly, preceding that with "fallacious" would imply that any doubt I might have regarding what I read is wrong... which would appear to me a rather dangerous attitude to take when reading internet articles.
The opposite would be believing everything I read... I'm sure you can see why I might have a problem with that.
Quote:who said depression wasn't a symptom of an underlying problem? You keep arguing strawmen you create whole cloth. Why don't you start asking some questions, instead of assuming completely erroneous things? Now if you have some specific study or theory you'd like to discuss, by all means, let's have it. Otherwise your criticisms are not only strawmen but completely vacuous to boot.
Seems to me you've been asked plenty of questions, Syne, but you spend more time arguing about why you should answer than actually answering.
For example, you've said above that you agree that depression is a symptom of an underlying problem. Now, instead of arguing about who said what and who agrees with who, why not try simply acknowledging that? It's taken us two pages or so to get even that out of you... one has to wonder at your purpose.
I'm leaving the whole overpopulation thing alone. It's too big to fit in here.
Although I'll make the quick note that your response reminds me of an argument I almost had with a girl at work once. During a discussion on how much they loved cats, I pointed out that cats left to their own devices were rapidly destroying native animal populations and were destructive little beasts. Her response was that humans had far more impact on the environment than cats did, so we shouldn't place any restrictions upon the freedom of cats.
I walked away at that point. I was at work, you see.
SyneDec 29, 2016 04:29 AM (This post was last modified: Dec 29, 2016 04:30 AM by Syne.)
(Dec 29, 2016 02:26 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Are you yet another person who likes to try dictating the terms of a discussion?
Really, Syne? You're levelling that as an accusation at me?
Looking back, it appears this started because I tried to tell you that my initial comments were lighthearted. You've spent quite some time arguing about that since then. My guess is you're not going to quit anytime soon.
Perhaps your entire stance here is the result of you being offended because I was initially insulting to Muslim suicide bombers. Perhaps you buy into this whole "respect" thing we're having pushed upon us, here in the west.
Here's my take on that - shove it. Some things deserve to be insulted, humorously or otherwise, and if you prefer to throw a blanket over everything in order to avoid insulting anyone, anywhere, then you, I'm afraid, are rapidly losing any respect I might have for you.
Now, go ahead and give me the internet 101 response to that.
Again, if your comments are lighthearted, why do you feel the need to insult? Disingenuous comments meant only to rile people up is the definition of trolling. Is that your intent? No, I am no apologist for Islam.
Quote:
Quote:You're the one who decided to cast erroneous obtuseness aspersions
Tell me, Syne, exactly what are erroneous obtuseness aspersions?
"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,
now thats running through your head, try something more atrocious...
Erroneous obtuseness might be enough to twist your brain,
but add the word aspersions and you just might be in pain!"
Sounds like Julie Andrews should be doing little twirls and singing it in the rain to an appropriate 50's musical tune. A couple of small children in sailor suits looking on in awe.
Still not picking up on tone, Syne? See if you can guess my facial expression after reading the above.
I'm rapidly garnering the impression you'd prefer to tell people what they were thinking, so I won't spoil your fun by simply describing my smile.
No, it's becoming quite clear that you are just a troll. I'm so glad such nonsense provides you with so much entertainment.
Quote:
Quote:More of the same is not going to allay criticism for your ad hominem insinuations. Like I said, if you'd have left it at "tongue in cheek", I would have happily accepted that. But since you can't seem to stop your attempts at poisoning the well, it's ridiculous to assume I would stop criticizing you for obviously fallacious arguments. As long as you insist on continuing such fallacies, you can deal with the repercussions like a big boy...instead of trying to hide from your own insults with JK.
No, Syne, I don't believe you would have 'happily left it at that". The obvious reason for that being... well, you quite simply have not.
I don't remember any ad hominem either. Perhaps I missed something. Actually, I can't really discern any reason at all for that whole quoted paragraph.
"Obviously fallacious arguments", "Like a big boy", "continuing such fallacies"... just go ahead and say you think I'm an idiot, Syne.
At the very least, you'd probably save some wear and tear on your thesaurus.
Why not just stop the insults and trolling and find out for yourself? If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't give you the time of day.
Quote:
Quote:I provided citation to support what I said, so how is that a gross generalization?
The gross generalisation, Syne, is you saying "depression is the major cause for suicide".
Citations have little to do with it.
Was there suppose to be an argument there?
Quote:
Quote:And in case you weren't aware:
Two articles, one from Root.com (says it all, really) and the other a guardian article, which speaks of FBI data regarding murder rates among blacks. Not suicides, I can't see the link you're trying to make there. Unless, of course, they're not committing suicide because they're getting murdered before they have a chance to?
I should make a quick note here, for your benefit. That last was tongue in cheek, again.
Poe's law, or your lack of perception, whatever.
Who said theRoot article spoke to suicide? I've already told you the link. Go read it again. And what sources do you prefer...since you've yet to cite any? I tend to provide sources leftists on science forums tend to accept as legitimate.
Quote:A few points: Firstly, I said since the 1950's. An overall trend among black people.
That very same article adds that rates among black teenage girls have increased over the same period. I've read several others noting an increase among the over-50's in general, which your article fails to mention.
So one would imagine, without doing any specific research, that the overall trend regarding suicide rates among black people since the 1950's is still... upward?
Here's another little tidbit for you - prior to the 1950's, the rate of suicide among black people (in the USA) was significantly lower than whites, regardless of age or gender.
I agree, for the reasons I've already given.
Quote:
Quote:And? Aside from your fallacious incredulity of, what, anything on the internet
No, Syne. Not anything. Just your articles, so far. And, of course, your comments.
Although I have to admit I do scrutinise most things I read very carefully. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "fallacious incredulity", though. Firstly, the word "incredulity" isn't really a good description of how I approach most written things, and, secondly, preceding that with "fallacious" would imply that any doubt I might have regarding what I read is wrong... which would appear to me a rather dangerous attitude to take when reading internet articles.
The opposite would be believing everything I read... I'm sure you can see why I might have a problem with that.
You certainly seemed to disapprove of internet citations in general. If you don't hold them all in equal incredulity, please, do enlighten.
Quote:
Quote:who said depression wasn't a symptom of an underlying problem? You keep arguing strawmen you create whole cloth. Why don't you start asking some questions, instead of assuming completely erroneous things? Now if you have some specific study or theory you'd like to discuss, by all means, let's have it. Otherwise your criticisms are not only strawmen but completely vacuous to boot.
Seems to me you've been asked plenty of questions, Syne, but you spend more time arguing about why you should answer than actually answering.
For example, you've said above that you agree that depression is a symptom of an underlying problem. Now, instead of arguing about who said what and who agrees with who, why not try simply acknowledging that? It's taken us two pages or so to get even that out of you... one has to wonder at your purpose.
Didn't you say it was "tongue in cheek"? You'll have to let me know when you get around to asking a serious question. You say I can't understand tone, yet you pretend you can't understand an acknowledgement simply because it's a rhetorical question? If you asked a direct question, you'd have gotten your answer sooner, but when you keep claiming it's all tongue in cheek, well...
Seems to me you're becoming quite lost now, and just arguing for the sake of it.
The last part alone is evidence enough you've completely lost track by this point.
Come back if you sort things out. I'm still waiting eagerly to find out what "erroneous obtuseness aspersions" are.
Yep, I figured any real effort would be wasted on you. If you ever manage anything resembling a serious, direct question or actual argument, I may reconsider. Until then, I'll just assume it's all "tongue in cheek".
Ben the Donkey Wrote:The Church (pretty much all of them) have always argued against suicide primarily because after millennia of trying to convince people that some form of paradise awaits after death, they are now faced with the conundrum of having to prevent people from wanting to go there a little earlier than intended. Which, you know, if you think about it, would be exactly what all believers would want to do... were they not informed it was a heinous sin.
Ben the Donkey Wrote:When I say "somewhat", though, you should bear in mind it seems far easier to convince someone to strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in a crowded marketplace when they're assured that won't be the end of all things for them.
Zin actually has a point in that post above mine. That depression is often linked to suicide is not evidence in and of itself that depression is the root cause. It just makes it a more agreeable solution to the sufferer.
You just need to realise that depression is more a symptom than a malady in itself.
From sin to insanity, right, Ben?
John Donne contributed a modern defense of suicide by justifying martyrdom.
Biathanatos
In a state of despair that almost drove him to kill himself, Donne noted that the death of a child would mean one mouth fewer to feed, but he could not afford the burial expenses. During this time, Donne wrote but did not publish Biathanatos, his defense of suicide.
Most cases of suicide, including those committed from despair, self-protection, self-aggrandizement, fear of suffering, impatience to reach the afterlife, or other self-interested motives are indeed sinful. But, Donne argues, suicide is justified when, like submission to martyrdom, it is done with charity, done for the glory of God. Indeed, in Donne’s highly unconventional view, Christ himself, in not merely allowing himself to be crucified but in voluntarily emitting his last breath on the cross, was in fact a suicide. This is the model by which men ought to be willing to lay down their lives for their brethren. However, Donne argues elsewhere in Biathanatos, because suicide is so likely to be committed for self-interested reasons rather than wholly for the glory of God, it is appropriate for both civil and canon law to prohibit it.
Even though there may be many contributing factors such as a chemical imbalance, loss of love, financial loss, status, trauma, etc., does it all boil down to a sense of powerlessness?
Doesn’t the martyr and suicidee have a lot in common, a quest for meaning, and personal significance, with suicide being the final act of control?
Does it lie in the difference between self-love and love of self? Self-love as being dependent on the opinions of others and the love of self being self-preservation?
(Dec 29, 2016 07:16 AM)Syne Wrote: Yep, I figured any real effort would be wasted on you. If you ever manage anything resembling a serious, direct question or actual argument, I may reconsider. Until then, I'll just assume it's all "tongue in cheek".
If what you've done so far is what you consider a real effort, then yes. It is wasted on me.
And if you'd "just assumed it was tongue in cheek" when you were told that was what it was, you could have saved yourself a couple of pages of writing. Make up your mind, boy.
You, Syne, don't have the gravitas to be able to pull off what you're trying to. You're not stupid by any means; but you do appear to be deliberately and obstinately so when you're riled. Which is, unfortunately for you, almost ridiculously easy to achieve.
It's like arguing with a woman. My apologies to those present, of course. Merely a... hmm. Stereotype. We can argue about that later, if you wish. I have plenty of thoughts regarding stereotypes, nothing original - but perhaps a little disrespected or ignored, generally speaking.
The lesson in all of this, of course, is that we can now see that tone is indeed discernible on the internet, provided one is not intellectually average, or lost in emotion. It is one of the reasons I disagree with those who attempt to legislate to the language used (i.e. swear words and the like) - obviously and demonstrably, it is quite possible to create quite the same effect without resorting to the use of what might be considered bad language.
I actually do live under a bridge, though.
Nah, not really. I've just always wanted to say that, but I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity.
(Dec 29, 2016 05:56 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Ben the Donkey Wrote:The Church (pretty much all of them) have always argued against suicide primarily because after millennia of trying to convince people that some form of paradise awaits after death, they are now faced with the conundrum of having to prevent people from wanting to go there a little earlier than intended. Which, you know, if you think about it, would be exactly what all believers would want to do... were they not informed it was a heinous sin.
Ben the Donkey Wrote:When I say "somewhat", though, you should bear in mind it seems far easier to convince someone to strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it in a crowded marketplace when they're assured that won't be the end of all things for them.
Zin actually has a point in that post above mine. That depression is often linked to suicide is not evidence in and of itself that depression is the root cause. It just makes it a more agreeable solution to the sufferer.
You just need to realise that depression is more a symptom than a malady in itself.
From sin to insanity, right, Ben?
John Donne contributed a modern defense of suicide by justifying martyrdom.
Biathanatos
In a state of despair that almost drove him to kill himself, Donne noted that the death of a child would mean one mouth fewer to feed, but he could not afford the burial expenses. During this time, Donne wrote but did not publish Biathanatos, his defense of suicide.
Most cases of suicide, including those committed from despair, self-protection, self-aggrandizement, fear of suffering, impatience to reach the afterlife, or other self-interested motives are indeed sinful. But, Donne argues, suicide is justified when, like submission to martyrdom, it is done with charity, done for the glory of God. Indeed, in Donne’s highly unconventional view, Christ himself, in not merely allowing himself to be crucified but in voluntarily emitting his last breath on the cross, was in fact a suicide. This is the model by which men ought to be willing to lay down their lives for their brethren. However, Donne argues elsewhere in Biathanatos, because suicide is so likely to be committed for self-interested reasons rather than wholly for the glory of God, it is appropriate for both civil and canon law to prohibit it.
Even though there may be many contributing factors such as a chemical imbalance, loss of love, financial loss, status, trauma, etc., does it all boil down to a sense of powerlessness?
Doesn’t the martyr and suicidee have a lot in common, a quest for meaning, and personal significance, with suicide being the final act of control?
Does it lie in the difference between self-love and love of self? Self-love as being dependent on the opinions of others and the love of self being self-preservation?
A friend of mine noted the other night (under the influence) that he thinks it's impossible to be an intelligent person and not be depressed. I would tend to tentatively agree. Not to the extent of being impossible, of course, but far more likely. Drunken talk serves as a catalyst for consideration more than serious agreement, its like the suicide bomber of sober conversation. I'm also well aware of my completely subjective viewpoint on what I might consider intelligent, naturally. That is, ultimately, my particular conceit - but not mine alone.
From sin to insanity... hmm. Insanity, to be sure (haha... really?), but sin? I was about to say "we should explore that" but it appears you've already done so.
Donne. So its not sin, its not insanity, and there is no "to be sure" about it.
7 billion.
It means nothing. Other than to the immediate circle, which is so much smaller than it once was. Well... Facebook.
You ever sat there and hummed a surname in tune with some particular theme from a movie when considering something?
While I'm sitting here wondering what to type, I've got Vader's theme from Star Wars going through my head... Donne, Donne, Donne, Doonnnnne Donne, D-Donne D-Donne.
Wonder what he looks like with his mask off. If he wasn't already dead, we could kill him to find out. Or catch him in the shower. That's the thing about movies, isn't it. Huge big mystery which could have been solved with some teenager with the star wars version of a mobile phone.
Donne lived in a time when life actually did mean something. When one had to be worth something in order to merely survive. Now?
We all survive.
Except if we die in car accidents. Or planking. Terri Schafer being on life support went to court.
Arguments about how long we should keep a dead person alive. Here's the thing though - try finding that on the internet with only a vague memory to go on.
Sorry.
Anyway. (Ahem).
I'm wondering if I admire martyrs or not. On the one hand, there's that biological imperative (for want of a better term) decrying it as a particularly ridiculous act. On the other, there's poetry. And here we are back on the subject concerned with that platform from above from which we are able to see the reaction to our action.
With regard to that pm, martyrdom seems particularly useless, doesn't it?
For who are others, compared to the man who knows himself?
(Dec 29, 2016 07:16 AM)Syne Wrote: Yep, I figured any real effort would be wasted on you. If you ever manage anything resembling a serious, direct question or actual argument, I may reconsider. Until then, I'll just assume it's all "tongue in cheek".
If what you've done so far is what you consider a real effort, then yes. It is wasted on me.
And if you'd "just assumed it was tongue in cheek" when you were told that was what it was, you could have saved yourself a couple of pages of writing. Make up your mind, boy.
You, Syne, don't have the gravitas to be able to pull off what you're trying to. You're not stupid by any means; but you do appear to be deliberately and obstinately so when you're riled. Which is, unfortunately for you, almost ridiculously easy to achieve.
It's like arguing with a woman. My apologies to those present, of course. Merely a... hmm. Stereotype. We can argue about that later, if you wish. I have plenty of thoughts regarding stereotypes, nothing original - but perhaps a little disrespected or ignored, generally speaking.
The lesson in all of this, of course, is that we can now see that tone is indeed discernible on the internet, provided one is not intellectually average, or lost in emotion. It is one of the reasons I disagree with those who attempt to legislate to the language used (i.e. swear words and the like) - obviously and demonstrably, it is quite possible to create quite the same effect without resorting to the use of what might be considered bad language.
I actually do live under a bridge, though.
Nah, not really. I've just always wanted to say that, but I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity.
Nope, it wasn't a real effort. I'd have to get responses worth such effort...and sadly, they never came. No intellectual challenge at all.
It's funny to watch you assume passions that did not exist just to stroke your own ego. I guess that's what you get out of trolling. Thinking you are masterfully manipulating people who are just baffled by your disingenuous manor. Have fun with that.
Dec 28, 2016 04:52 PM
(This post was last modified: Dec 28, 2016 04:54 PM by Ben the Donkey.)
