Please take it as a given that I’m expressing my opinions, I have never claimed that any of my arguments are perfect, clearly they aren’t. Terms like ‘rational’, ‘happy’ etc aren’t precise, but we’d mostly agree on their meaning. This is what I mean by “common frame of reference”.
Yes, my statement is not axiomatic. It is nonetheless a pretty strong argument. Notice I said and not or. And I’d already clarified what I was saying before you posted.
If you wish for clarification of any of my posts, please ask for it, don’t jump to conclusions about what I’m saying.
Hope to god theres some really fast legislation happening though. While its possible that anyone being a victim this way is ‘sane’, Ill bet a zillion in practise they’re impaired in some way, by clinical depression if nothing else.
And yes the perp might have mental problems but thats a different thing, basically different standards apply when it comes to perpetrating violent acts.
I wasn’t trying to understand Brandes’ motives, as we can only speculate about them. I was saying it wasn’t a rational act.
I don’t see a problem with your reasoning, I just don’t think it can be applied to Meiwes or Brandes. Meiwes actions seem to be the result of a sexual fantasy, Brandes was suicidal - we don’t know why he chose that form of suicide.
And the strength of your argument is derived from treating your premise as truth. That rational happy people don’t contemplate suicide. Ergo, anyone contemplating suicide, is not happy and rational.
If you aren’t prepared to act as though some premises are, in fact, true, you can never actually come to a conclusion or make a decision. Just because I’m assuming for the sake of a debate that a point is true, doesn’t mean I believe it to be incontrovertable truth, and won’t re-assess it at a later date.
If you are only prepared to argue in these terms, you’ll end up only being prepared to use pure mathematics to debate in. It isn’t really a suitable language for discussing issues like this. This is why I find this line of argument ridiculously picky.
Have you ever heard of a suicide note that read “Don’t worry, I’m perfectly happy, but I just decided to kill myself.”? This is what makes it a strong argument.
By contemplate suicide, I mean seriously contemplate (to the point of nearly going through with it). I’m not suggesting that anyone who has ever had a suicidal thought is either not rational or fundamentally happy. Is this what you thought I was saying? I’m saying at the time they were experiencing these feelings they were not happy. This seems pretty elementary to me.
Yes, but we aren’t lawmakers here, actually discussing with deadlines and political realities in mind. We have the luxury of time and detached observation and argument.
Sorry, I’ll have to check my suicide note collection in the attic and get back to you.
Depends on what you mean by ‘happy’ and ‘rational’. I see ‘rational’ thinking as a process, not an end set of resultant thoughts and decisions. What those end thoughts turn out to be, depend on what premises and initial conditions you start with. ‘Happy’ does not mean elation or uplifted spirit for most people who are called that. It means being content, low stress, no major dissonances. I can easily contemplate someone of strong athiestic bent, feeling at say, an age of 60, that (s)he has achieved all that they consider important in life and wish to avoid the rigors of a passive and possibly debalitated old age. Suicide doesn’t have to driven by a feeling of escape from a bleak future, just an uninteresting one. These people could very well be described as ‘happy’ and ‘rational’. The main thing preventing a lot of people from doing it today is the uncertainty of after death and social commitments.
Yes, but we aren’t lawmakers here, actually discussing with deadlines and political realities in mind. We have the luxury of time and detached observation and argument.
Sorry, I’ll have to check my suicide note collection in the attic and get back to you.
Depends on what you mean by ‘happy’ and ‘rational’. I see ‘rational’ thinking as a process, not an end set of resultant thoughts and decisions. What those end thoughts turn out to be, depend on what premises and initial conditions you start with. ‘Happy’ does not mean elation or uplifted spirit for most people who are called that. It means being content, low stress, no major dissonances. I can easily contemplate someone of strong athiestic bent, feeling at say, an age of 55, that (s)he has achieved all that they consider important of life and wish to avoid the rigors of a passive and possibly debalitated old age. Suicide doesn’t have to driven by a feeling of escape from a bleak future, just an uninteresting one. These people could very well be described as ‘happy’ and ‘rational’.
I have better things to do with my life than discuss the same trivial point endlessly.
I repeat, have you heard of a case like this? Every suicide I’ve ever heard about has been linked to depression. Ergo, there is a strong link between the two. Doesn’t mean every suicide is a depressive, simply that the probability is high.
I never said suicide couldn’t be rational. In Brandes’ case, I was referring to his decision to be cannabalised, and his participation in this act, as irrational. You could argue that once he had decided to die, the manner of his death was irrelevant. But this misses the point that he almost certainly had a strong motivation for seeking his death in this manner, and that we have little chance of understanding it.
In your example above, I’d agree that that the person above could be described as rational, but I wouldn’t call them completely happy. They might be happy about their past life, but they are unhappy about their future prospects, therefore they might contemplate suicide.
Bear in mind I’m not condeming either suicide or euthnasia.
“Happy” is a state of mind, its transatory. In the context I used it (a happy person) it implies that they are more often happy than not. “Rational” is also a state of mind, and the definition of what constitutes rational thinking is quite fuzzy. It depends on your point of view, and isn’t the same as logical. I’d say a logical action is rational, but not all rational actions are logical.
If you argued them in the first place, they neither would be trivial nor the discussion endless. Your argument basically outlines what “normal” people contemplate and do, and hence a deviation from that is unwarranted and must be curtailed (by law and society). Dicussing what constitutes “normal” and why it must be dictated by the majority’s fiat is hardly a trivial point.
No. it simply means that if it exists, the media hasn’t made it prominent. Most suicides aren’t covered on the national media unless there’s foul play or someone famous involved. Most unusual suicides end up in bizarre/oddities tabloids, and not in prominent media outlets.
No. He responded to an advertisement. You can argue that he had weird notions. But the audience here is mostly appalled by the grossness of the act. The basic point of contention here involves the control of a person’s life only and not the mannerisms associated.
“Completely happy”? That’s a person out of touch with reality. I defined happiness as a state of contentment with no major dissonances or stress.
I see. That part means little to me after the part of wanting to be dead in the first place. After removing the value of his own life, none of those “insanity per se” acts seem to carry any weight (to me). Being eaten seems “as crazy” as being cremated, buried in the ground to rot, dropped in the ocean, etc. I appreciate that his choice left normalcy to be desired, but I also appreciate that it was his body to do with as he pleased in the first place.
That it was thought out before hand and apparently made sense to one of the only people in the world who has any say about what may be done with his body. That there was no direct evidence, or even possibly suspicious behavior, of coercion.
While you might suggest, for example, that “not all humans have rational motivations”, I would suggest that “not all humans agree on what constitutes rationality.” Nothing indicates irrationality to me, but of course I cannot strictly interview him. I guess the core question is, “Does anything indicate to me that he was incapable of making this decision?” My only answer is, “Perhaps his depression was such that he could not competently make a long-term decision like suicide.”
The original argument came about because you said “a belief dressed up as an objective observation”. A very weak argument, I was mearly stating my opinion not asserting it as truth. This is the trivial point I was referring to, that we seem to be bogged down discussing. Which is frustrating, as the other points you raise are certainly worth talking about. It would have been more productive to ask me for clarification, or question my conclusion than my ability to reason.
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I’m well aware of how imprecise words like “normal”, “rational”, “devient”, “perverse” are. They depend on your point of view. That doesn’t mean I can’t use them.
There is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and society as a whole. I believe its important to try to give the individual as many rights as possible, of thought, attitude, behaviour and expression. Tolerance is very important to me. However, we require laws because inevitably there are situations where one person’s expression of their rights infringes on somone else.
Let me ask, what do you think about this case? Do you believe that Meiwes commited no crime and Brandes was not disturbed or depressed? What evidence do you have to support this conclusion?
Unusual suicides are newsworthy, remember the cultists who wanted to take a ride on a comet?
I agree its the grossness of the act that disturbs most people, and that in legal terms this shouldn’t be held to be very important. For me the main issue is this - did Meiwes exploit Brandes? I believe he did. I can’t prove it, but I think its highly probable.
Once again you are interpreting me far too literally. Please try to look at the meaning behind what I am saying instead of quibbling over details of language. If my points are unclear, my writing skills being only modest, I’m happy to try to clarify them.
Yes, like I said, your conclusions only stand up if the premise is accepted as “truth”.
But it’s not going to be much of a debate if we don’t mutually agree what these terms mean. If we can’t come to an agreement on that, no point arguing further.
All rights infringe on others, in some way. An individual in a society doesn’t have much choice but to accede fundamentally, if (s)he wishes to survive.
Meiwes didn’t commit a crime. He put out an advertisment and Brandes voluntarily responded. As has been noted, Meiwes did not harm two earlier respondents who backed out at the last moment. Was Brandes depressed/disturbed? I’m guessing, by what I understand of your outlook, and what society considers depressed, probably yes.
Lots, lots more people commit sucide daily, around the world, than are reported in all media outlets combined. Besides, not everyone leaves a suicide note.
If you’re ready to clarify them, then I humbly suggest expending that time in being literal the first time. Like you alluded earlier, you have your own particular frame of reference. By writing as literally as possible, there isn’t much scope for “re-interpretation” later on like Bush Admin’s “We never said Iraq was imminent threat”. Literally a true statement, false in spirit.
You said the example person I put forward wasn’t “completely happy”. By my definition, I consider him happy. We need to agree what happy means before we argue whether “happy” people seriously contemplate or attempt suicide.
And in any case, the core point being argued is whether Brandes was coerced somehow into dying. Given the course of events, it seems, No. It shouldn’t matter what the physical health of the “victim” is (the exception you’re willing to make). That’s just forcing what you consider suitable grounds down someone else’s throat.
Clearly we are getting nowhere. A shame as some of your ideas would be worth talking about, if you would stop accusing me of “ramming my opinions down people’s throats”. I’m simply stating my opinions, a pretty fundamental part of any debate.
The impression you are giving me, rightly or wrongly, is that you aren’t interested in anything I’m saying, and that you are simply nit-picking. So I’ll terminate this discussion now.
You aren’t “ramming opinion down throats”, but your arguments are phrased with partial terms. Do you considering defining “happy” and “rational” nit-picking? If so, then yes, I’m nit-picking. I’m saying that we need to be mutually clear in the terms and schema of debate, before we go the whole nine yards of debating.
