Well, for example, they are going to spend millions to put up suicide barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge. Jumping here doesn’t cause any trauma for the train driver etc. But it would seem that these barriers would just make more dudes jump in front of a train. Why waste millions on barriers to a form of suicide that only hurts the jumper?
To be very controversial, I suppose there also could be a suicide center, where suicides are counseled, made to wait for a period of time, then given a does of drugs that would cause them to die peacefully in a private room.
We had a thread about this not long ago. I thought that proposal was abandoned after studies showed that the jumpers would probably just go to another bridge. Is it back on?
Yes. Really, history demonstrates that statements in the form of “surely they wouldn’t be so nasty as to do that” tend to be wrong. And historically, shooting strikers has been a popular tactic of the powerful. It still is, in many parts of the world.
I’m pretty sure that he really would have strikers shot if he could, for the same reason I’m pretty sure that a neo-Nazi really would kill Jews given the chance; because that’s exactly what people like that have done when they had the power to do so.
Yeah, that’s just Jezza being Jezza, making a point and carrying it to an illogical extreme to get a rise out of people. However, I have removed throwing myself in front of a train from my list of Plans Z because I thought about the feelings of the engineer and the cleanup crew.
Missed the edit. To clarify what I meant, I was referring to when the claim that “they’d never do that” is in response to something someone has actually said they support.
To leave the bodies to be scavenged by wild animals would certainly deter the future occurrence of people wandering near the tracks, whether they mean to or it’s by accident. However, I think that all human deaths, regardless of method or reason, deserve some respect and time to dwell on, because death is bad and we should not take anyone dying lightly.
Also, if animals begin to become accustomed to finding a source of food near the tracks, we might start dealing with many more animal deaths, especially if other animals try to scavenge the dead animals, who were trying to eat the crushed, mangled human bodies in the first place. We do not want to encourage this vicious cycle.
Jeremy Clarkson is a prime source of entertainment, and I have appreciated his contributions to my car show Top Gear for years, but as a source of philosophical or intellectual information, what the man puts out to the public is often obscure and irrelevant to implementation in our current or even normative society.
Well, a HS friend of mine did this 2 years ago right before Thanksgiving. He had struggled with depression as long as I’d known him (more than 25 years). I really don’t think people who do things like this are thinking clearly. I’m sure that if he had been in his right mind, he never would have wished on his poor beloved, distraught wife the horrible task of identifying his body afterward. But do you seriously think the manner of his death made a huge difference to the hundreds upon hundreds of his current and former students who came to the wake? (He was a hugely popular grade school art teacher.) I think it was (at least I hope it was) a teachable moment about mental illness, and I don’t think any purpose at all would have been served by leaving his body for scavengers, not to mention it would have been even more upsetting to his family and friends (his father, for example, is a psychologist, and was probably beating himself up enough already for not having been able to do anything to stop him).
And do you think it would have been any less traumatic for his loved ones if they’d found him hanging (like the wife of another acquaintance did), or suffocated by his own vomit with a plastic bag over his head in the backyard (like the wife of a HS friend found her husband)? People need to take away those bodies, too.
OTOH at least he did it at 2:00 am, which isn’t exactly rush hour.
Shock jocks don’t just have to have long hair and a hot girlfriend.
They can also be like Limbaugh. The point is to get attention and ad dollars.
That is the base foundation for all of this kind of programming.
Now, there are distinctive styles and some are more entertaining than others.
But, “if it don’t bleed, it don’t lead” is still a directive influence on all media.
Kind of missing the point. Like debating whether the bank robber was rude for cutting in line.
Someone who is in the state of mind to be legitimately suicidal can’t really be expected to consider the bigger picture and others feelings.
Yes, suicide by train or by cop comes with collateral damage. So does any suicide. It’s true, but it’s a meaningless thing to discuss. Its not like anyone is going create a PSA that says “sure, kill yourself, just don’t inconvenience anyone else”.
Hence the part where I said “to a certain extent”. If I love someone, I would like to know that they will take a minimal of care with my love for them. Try not to kill people I love, including yourself.
I definitely don’t mean ending your life is always the wrong decision. It is always selfish, because you prioritise your not wanting to live over a loved one’s wanting you to live. But that is perhaps not always bad.
If there is a real reason you cannot go on living, you have the responsibility to loved ones to discuss that with them. There is a chance that is not possible at all, which is really sad. There should be a less selfish way of doing this that includes adequate help and then perhaps euthanasia. In Holland, this is currently under discussion.
I also think that it is important to see what Clarkson does: he just throws it out there, add the nuance in your head. So discuss it! Sure it’s nasty to think about, suicide is nasty. Picking bits of human off a train is nasty. Let’s talk about why we don’t just leave them there to rot.
For me: the people they leave behind deserve to have a special place where their loved one’s body is at peace.
He may be right-wing to some degree, but his first and biggest target is always himself - and that is not typical blowhard behavior. Plus, an actual hard-rightist would never get so chummy with the likes of Stephen Fry.
In 99% of cases, there wouldn’t really be a meaningful discussion. No loved one is going to say, “Oh, I am all behind you in your decision to kill yourself! I’ll call the funeral home right now!” No, the “discussion” will be your loves ones convincing you to commit yourself to a hospital. The moment you say, “I want to die”, that’s it. No one is really going to care why you want to do it, because you’re instantly branded as crazy and “in need of help.”
'Tis easier to make your arrangements, write a good note, and just do it.
There is no ‘to some degree’. He is. He has a history of blowhard behaviour going back a decade or so. All this is nothing new.
And of course he uses himself as a target. He is a right wing xenophobic blowhard but he is still British. Targeting ourselves regarding jokes is what we do.
That’s your opinion. I think he is first and foremost a comedian, and he says things because he thinks people will find them funny, and not because he hopes or expects anyone to actually agree with him.
I’m quite surprised anyone takes him seriously. I bet he is, too.