I'd commit suicide in all of the following circumstances.
-in a SAW™ type situation.
-Vegetated state with a low probability of recovery.
-Losing multiple limbs.
-60%(+) Burns/BSA (especially on face)
-Life sentence in Prison
-Total Blindness
-loss of Genitals with no possibility of replacement.
-[probably] terminal cancer/AIDS
-[zombie apocalypse]
dig·ni·ty
ˈdiɡnədē/
noun
the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.
You can't have dignity in death, when you die, you life stops and your body stops function, your consciousness disappears and so does all of your qualities. You lose your dignity once you die, it becomes nothing but a memory, and if one is too busy thinking about they will be remembered after death then they still are connected to living. And again, anyone who thinks less of of someone's dignity because of a state which they entered because of a disease is a retard.
Honour and respect don't die with the person; they live on in others around them. But that's not totally the point; what I'm trying to get through to you is the act of dying can often be undignified - humiliating for the doer. It's not about thinking less of someone, it's about the person in question having a peaceful, happy death.
A person's final moments are precious, and ought not to be wasted on feeling embarrassed, scared or humiliated.
Honour and respect don't die with the person; they live on in others around them. But that's not totally the point; what I'm trying to get through to you is the act of dying can often be undignified - humiliating for the doer. It's not about thinking less of someone, it's about the person in question having a peaceful, happy death.
A person's final moments are precious, and ought not to be wasted on feeling embarrassed, scared or humiliated.
being humiliated right before death is what you're talking about, death itself can not be more dignified than other, it can be worse but it can not have honor and respect, those are qualities obtained before death and not during it.
Ultimately all you're convincing me right now about is that one shouldn't have unpleasant memory before death otherwise it's not "dignified" as if having final peaceful moments is any more dignified than dying while fighting a disease.
Sorry to the both of you. I now realize how stupid and insensitive my questions are. Didn't put much thought into this thread before creating it. It was pretty spontaneous :|
There is no need to be sorry! My post was a general response to the overall topic of and comments within this thread. It was not directed at you! Moreover, I did not think your questions were "stupid" or "insensitive" nor did it seem like you had any malicious intent; it seemed like you were just genuinely curious about our thoughts on the issue I apologize for the confusion
Any situation where there's no chance of enjoying life again, cause that's all we really live for. We'd hardly seek to live 80+ years if it was constant agony from the year dot.
being humiliated right before death is what you're talking about, death itself can not be more dignified than other, it can be worse but it can not have honor and respect, those are qualities obtained before death and not during it.
Ultimately all you're convincing me right now about is that one shouldn't have unpleasant memory before death otherwise it's not "dignified" as if having final peaceful moments is any more dignified than dying while fighting a disease.
Sorry, I avoided replying to anyone, but I just HAD to step in for this one, as Survival Instinct is THE primary instinct known to humanity and most living organisms. People cling onto life, not because they are brave, but because they are biologically programmed to hold onto life. They don't want to let go, because it's their organic system's program; fight death! Why else do you think adrenaline rush is a biological phenomenon? Granted it can be induced synthetically as well, but in life threatening situations, it kicks in and your body performs at 200% (more as well) in regards to reflex action, muscle movement and strength etc.
Your body's pain sensation goes down considerably. Why all of this magic, you ask? So that you can bloody survive in a life-threatening situation! Your organic programming kicks in the hardest at such occasions, which is why you have incidents where a light-built woman threw away several men to save her child's life, or when a woman would fight off an aggressor, despite being of lesser strength and durability and why people keep on running even whilst they are stabbed and bleeding or gravely injured and profusely bleeding out.
I cannot believe the posts I am reading here ...
The rest of your post is typical human exceptionalism; the garbage fed by the media, culture and social values. Nothing more, nothing less. Kindly, don't believe in such stuff. The "heroism" notion is preposterous and a stuff of "sacrificial stories" of the olden days that people lap up like mutts. We absolutely LOVE for others to give their lives for us. It's noble somehow. And who came up with this notion? Humanity again. In see a cruel irony here, and it doesn't train a flash-light of intellectually at us; no, it makes us look even more pitiful as the so-called intelligent species.
All of these "they are cowards, whimps quitters etc." are social, cultural and religious dogmas. They have nothing to do with your biological make-up. In short, they are a load of bullshit humanity keeps on feeding itself, because it thinks it has that magic of "being so special" going on. And then, you look at the reality of humanity with 96 % people with their IQs barely scraping the 80 mark. The remaining barely scramble over that impossible mark and make it to average domain of 100, and only 1 or 2 % (as most of them are rough estimates) are even worth something with IQs above 130. So, humanity thinking itself to be highly intelligent … must be because of those parental one-on-ones: Son/daughter, “mom, I am not like everyone else, am I?” Mom, “Of course not, son/daughter. You are soooo speccciaaaal!”
So, let me ask everyone this: when humanity itself is intellectually precarious as it is (I wouldn't even give it that much courtesy), then whose dogmatic mores are you people to attuned to? As none of this turgid crap is even remotely intellectually or biologically relevant. And make judgments about the dead? Oh look, they care so much about these fascinating appraisals ... Oh wait …
Sorry, I avoided replying to anyone, but I just HAD to step in for this one, as Survival Instinct is THE primary instinct known to humanity and most living organisms. People cling onto life, not because they are brave, but because they are biologically programmed to hold onto life. They don't want to let go, because it's their organic system's program; fight death! Why else do you think adrenaline rush is a biological phenomenon? Granted it can be induced synthetically as well, but in life threatening situations, it kicks in and your body performs at 200% (more as well) in regards to reflex action, muscle movement and strength etc.
Your body's pain sensation goes down considerably. Why all of this magic, you ask? So that you can bloody survive in a life-threatening situation! Your organic programming kicks in the hardest at such occasions, which is why you have incidents where a light-built woman threw away several men to save her child's life, or when a woman would fight off an aggressor, despite being of lesser strength and durability and why people keep on running even whilst they are stabbed and bleeding or gravely injured and profusely bleeding out.
I cannot believe the posts I am reading here ...
The rest of your post is typical human exceptionalism; the garbage fed by the media, culture and social values. Nothing more, nothing less. Kindly, don't believe in such stuff. The "heroism" notion is preposterous and a stuff of "sacrificial stories" of the olden days that people lap up like mutts. We absolutely LOVE for others to give their lives for us. It's noble somehow. And who came up with this notion? Humanity again. In see a cruel irony here, and it doesn't train a flash-light of intellectually at us; no, it makes us look even more pitiful as the so-called intelligent species.
All of these "they are cowards, whimps quitters etc." are social, cultural and religious dogmas. They have nothing to do with your biological make-up. In short, they are a load of bullshit humanity keeps on feeding itself, because it thinks it has that magic of "being so special" going on. And then, you look at the reality of humanity with 96 % people with their IQs barely scraping the 80 mark. The remaining barely scramble over that impossible mark and make it to average domain of 100, and only 1 or 2 % (as most of them are rough estimates) are even worth something with IQs above 130. So, humanity thinking itself to be highly intelligent … must be because of those parental one-on-ones: Son/daughter, “mom, I am not like everyone else, am I?” Mom, “Of course not, son/daughter. You are soooo speccciaaaal!”
So, let me ask everyone this: when humanity itself is intellectually precarious as it is (I wouldn't even give it that much courtesy), then whose dogmatic mores are you people to attuned to? As none of this turgid crap is even remotely intellectually or biologically relevant. And make judgments about the dead? Oh look, they care so much about these fascinating appraisals ... Oh wait …
How is any of this relevant when the issue in this thread is this: people who commit suicide take the easy way. Because in a way it is true. I don't mean I agree with the notion of them being cowards, but I get that point of view and explaining why people cling onto life doesn't really tackle that issue.
Your post would fit if the topic was "why people find it hard to commit suicide?".
And about the hero aspect. Are you saying people giving their lives to save others shouldn't be called heroes?
Bolded: Can I get a source for this please? Last I checked average IQ is 100 and roughly half of the population are below it.
You must be registered for see links
Also in here:
You must be registered for see links
most have average iq over 80 so I don't know where you got your numbers from.
Look into people's notes in notes/videos after news about suicide. Feels like rather than killing oneself, suicide is a case of a person using themselves as a tool to kill themself, when the main reasoings were implemented by outsider impacts.
For example Leelah Alcorn killed herself due to unbearable social pressure of being trans. Same happened with another trans girl who jumped off bridge last year. Or a man who sold chestnuts for a living took his own life last year because he had debt and police did not allow him to work. About 2 weeks ago a man was about to jump off the bridge, the people almost stopped him from doing so but then a ***** yelled him "jump if you wanna jump, you are blocking the way" and then he jumped.
It is very similar for someone who kills themselves after learning they have terminal illness, they can not control it. Several rapists and murderers kill themselves due to guilt of conciousness; even though they commited crime knowingly they can not control regret and self hate.
I do not want to generalize but in most cases people kill themselves for things they can not control. It is not cowardice, it is thinking and knowing they can not change things for better.
This slightly differsfor suicide bombers, but i do not want to talk about them atm :/
it is a choice and it is certainly not an easy one. however, it is also an option
those who say the suicidal are "wimps" do have a point, albeit a shallow and blunt one. individuals who are suicidal process emotions and stress differently than the ones who called them wimps or weak. are they emotionally weak? perhaps by comparison. unstable? certainly. but people vary. emotional strength varies.
i would not condemn someone who is likely mentally ill for a choice they've made, that is not society's job. society's job is to promote how to deal with environmental and emotional stressors and to make sure they know there are alternatives. judgement really only goes so far
How is any of this relevant when the issue in this thread is this: people who commit suicide take the easy way. Because in a way it is true. I don't mean I agree with the notion of them being cowards, but I get that point of view and explaining why people cling onto life doesn't really tackle that issue.
Your post would fit if the topic was "why people find it hard to commit suicide?".
And about the hero aspect. Are you saying people giving their lives to save others shouldn't be called heroes?
Bolded: Can I get a source for this please? Last I checked average IQ is 100 and roughly half of the population are below it.
You must be registered for see links
Also in here:
You must be registered for see links
most have average iq over 80 so I don't know where you got your numbers from.
It is, because humanity as a whole is not even remotely intellectually capable of making judgments about such a complex phenomenon as death. Which is why, they know the only think the know how to do; cling to dogmas and pray that one fits for their pitiful explanations on life and death.
Humanity as a whole is nothing more than an unintelligent hive-mind, which is why you have concepts like human exceptionalism, heroism, ideology etc. glorified to a nauseating degree. People need something persistently to make them consciously feel that their lives are worth more than another’s group based on a varied number of ideological perceptions.
Let me get that IQ one out of the way first:
Wait, what?
You must be registered for see links
Why is the average score set to 100? Psychometricians utilize a process known as standardization to make it possible to compare and interpret the meaning of IQ scores. This process is accomplished by administering the test to a representative sample and using these scores to establish standards, usually referred to as norms, by which all individual scores can be compared. Since the average score is 100, experts can quickly assess individual test scores against the average to determine where these scores fall on the normal distribution.
That is an appraisal scale. Also, researches strongly disagree about the pretty pictures of IQ tests, which are not always representative of the true picture. In fact, human intelligence and the mental schemas we create about people are very much inter-related. Average IQ does not mean that the entire IQ aggregate fits the bill. I have no clue why you even posted that link.
Not to mention the drop in average IQ in the recent decade. These "cute" charts don't seem to represent the problem here, when it's a scientifically known fact that people are becoming more and more pedestrian as time goes by:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
What does this graph tell you:
You must be registered for see images
Also, average intelligence is measured from 90 upwards, not 100:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
You are mistaking a gauge against the real scoring. Also, IQ score is not something you should look as a be-all-end-all statement, as neither everyone takes them nor are they completely accurate. Therefore, a lot of factors are looked at in these fields' of research.
Now for the hero part (I will keep it as brief as possible): Hero is a societal and cultural made concept that has no relevance intellectually and biologically, given its paradoxical nature; one nation's hero is another nation's monster. These are things that developed out of war-ideologies in the past. Literature simply adds to the whole pointless framework of building a human being that is a stuff of fiction. If I ask you to define the term “hero,” you would state self-sacrifice, when there is no such thing as the “sacrifice of Self” in this modern world, where Self as a self-defining identity doesn’t even exist.
People are built from the good up psychologically by taking in their cultural notions; people ARE a product of their culture. If a culture promotes something, it becomes a matter of indoctrination where one concept is passed on to the next and so on. That does not mean that honor, bravery and other fancy connotations should be, absolutely, attached to heroism.
Look at it this way, Language is a new concept if one looks at the development of humanity as a whole overtime; bar the concept of civilization. Once that arose, it became a necessity to develop a “system of signs” to communicate. Thereby, one can state that “necessity” for the masses created a verbal code of communication, for which, we were never biologically created. In fact, Larynx and Pharynx have been “theoretically” modified for speech; it is not their biological function.
People assume that “language,” that is foolish considered as an absolute communicative system, a vehicle for function within a society is not a biological factor nor is any human being in need of it. But, over time, we developed it regardless into a “system of expression that has become a necessity for us all.” Why? Globalization, trade, religion and culture made it incumbent upon people to create such a multi-model system of communication.
The concept of “heroism” is no different. It is such a human concept that is born out of “necessity” for the well-being of the masses, over the sacrifices of few. Humanity has always believed in the notions of “group.” Now, the world is not made of a single group, but a large mass of groups; each with their own set of mores. Imagine, in the past when these groups had to confront one and another over “ideals” of culture, religion, political or basic human needs such as “resources.”
Humanity needs euphemism to paint a better picture of something heinous, obscene or culturally taboo. Blood shed was never an accepted cultural practice anywhere (bar ritualistic sacrifices), which is why, a “group” was in need of people to deliver them absolution from this moral dilemma. Heroes are just that; personifications of a metaphor that has diachronically evolved out of the basic human psyche when it comes to group wars; the need to create conflict. Just as “ethnic cleansing” became a better lovely euphemism for slaughter and “collateral damage” is an another one; a pretty phrase to hide the horrors of mas human deaths to kill few in the name of national security.
The ones who did the “cleansing and damage” are or were, morally heroes, which is why morals are precarious, shaky and human invented, faulty systems. They always trip, need rewiring and are never consistent.
Heroes are created where something becomes something else (a metaphor); a common man who kills others in war is given accolades as he keeps the interests of the group from breaking apart. In case of local or common sacrifices, then people have always shown a keen leaning towards sacrificing few for the gain of majority. This was common in the forceful (sometimes willing) ritualistic acts of sacrifices, which must seem barbaric today; but as always, everything evolves out of “necessity.” Those sacrifices were morally just then, they are not now.
Now, a further connotation is attached to the term hero; someone who sacrifices himself for others. These are born out of the age old sacrificial stories. And many critics delineate them as one of the four main type of stories out of which “all story and story structures” evolve. Stories are a cultural phenomenon. They carry the marks of a civilization, and keep the notions “humanity finds apt as necessities” alive.
Imagine a child (and I will keep this short) reads growing up about a hero who killed himself to save a kingdom. Such stories are culturally glorified with sense of honor and prestige associated with their structures. Their frameworks recreate the mental schemas of a child’s imagination: “sacrificing one for others is a noble thing to do.” The child’s mental models are being created and recreated, simply out of a catalog of cultural necessities, connotations and existing mores. He isn’t made to reflect on many possibilities, when emotional outcomes are already a part of the story’s “suggestion structures.”
My point being, with the world becoming that much more globalized and “idolatry of democracy” being the main stone under the buildings of complex cultural phenomenon(s), where “identity” is already a matter of “fragmentation and constant recreation,” where “self doesn’t exist,” but is uniquely recreated to fit the molds of a consistently metamorphosing culture … how is hero a natural concept?
P.s: Any long post will not be replied to, as I am off to play tomb raider 2. Peace.
I apologize for the confusion 
