# This is the meta-solution to ethics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566 "2014-03-01T01:22:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/101 "2014-03-02T08:14:28Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > This isn’t how I learned Cantors diagonal proof. > > The problem is that Cantor suggests that all the reals cannot be counted. > > so a list like… > etc… > 0.01234567891 > 0.12345678910 > 0.23456789101 > 0.34567891011 > 0.45678910111 > 0.56789101112 > 0.67891011121 > 0.78910111213 > etc… > has diagonals that cannot be on the list because all diagonals and their derivatives have a interval greater than 1 which the list accommodates. > > There’s no way to list all of the irrationals in one list of numbers in one to one correspondence in one dimension: > > 0123456789 > 1234567891 > 2345678910 > 3456789101 > 4567891011 > 5678910111 > 6789101112 > 7891011121 > 8910111213 > > The diagonals have intervals of 2 and if you make a list of all the numbers with intervals of two the diagonals have intervals of 3 etc… not that you need the diagonals to see that this sequence never produces intervals greater than 1, so you don’t need a diagonal “proof” to make the argument, personally I find it confusing. > > You can’t list the numbers > > 0123456789 … … … and > 0246810121 > 2468101214 > 4681012141 > 6810121416 in the same list if the intervals go to infinity. you could list: > > 0123456789 > 0246810121 > 1234567891 > 2468101214 > 2345678910 > 4681012141 but that’s because you’re only counting 2 intervals, an interval of 1 and an interval of 2. > > You can do it if you only count any finite number of intervals, but the moment it becomes infinite, you can never pass the zero to count the irrationals inwards and you can’t count the irrationals inwards unless you stop this sequence: > > 0123456789 > 0246810121 > 0369121518 > 0481216202 > 0510152025 > 0612182430 etc… > > This isn’t a diagonal argument though, but it is proof that at infinity, you cannot count all the irrationals in one list, using only one dimension. Now I’m looking at a list that sequences them with infinite lists, in correspondence with the counting numbers. using multiple decimal points for dimensions. > > The point of this is that you cannot count all of the reals using one list with one dimension, because one list with one dimension has a LIMIT, and even though the list is infinite, you can prove that there is a limit to how much infinity you can squeeze into one list with one dimension. > > Your modification of the number 3 etc… doesn’t change that these modifications can be added when dealing with MULTIPLE lists, so actually your amazing revelation that Cantor used the diagonal argument with some stupid algorithm to somehow stump that these numbers can’t be listed is ABSURD. I can easily create NEW lists to accommodate this algorithm, so actually Cantors argument doesn’t really prove that all the reals cannot be counted… what can be proven is that all the reals cannot be counted in ONE LIST WITH ONE DIMENSION… Cantors algorithm not withstanding. I realized that this might be confusing… The point is that when you have a list like: 012345678910 123456789101 234567891011 345678910111 456789101112 567891011121 678910111213 Then you add another interval: 024681012141 246810121416 468101214161 681012141618 810121416182 101214161820 If you mix these two intervals together (weave them together every other), you’ll have: 1.) 012345678910 2.) 024681012141 1.) 123456789101 2.) 246810121416 1.) 234567891011 2.) 468101214161 The problem here is that when you converge this series at infinity, you have to get past an infinite amount of zero’s to even begin the 1’s: 1.) 012345678910 1.) 024681012141 1.) 036912151821 1.) 048121620242 1.) 051015202530 1.) 061218243036 etc… So… it is impossible to count an infinity before you begin counting another infinity, and this makes it impossible to count all of the reals in one dimension with one list. No diagonal argument needed here! BUT! for each of these sequences, you can still keep them countable by adding additional lists! List 1. 1.) 012345678910… 2.) 123456789101… 3.) 234567891011… 4.) 345678910111… 5.) 456789101112… etc… List 2. 1.) 024681012141… 2.) 246810121416… 3.) 468101214161… 4.) 681012141618… 5.) 810121416182… By using this technique, you can effectively square an order of infinity and still keep it countable. You can run the diagonals for these lists by adding another dimension to each list. List 1 list 1.1, list 1.2, list 1.3 etc… List 2, list 2.1, list 2.2, list 2.3 etc… Or as was mentioned earlier, you could run the diagonals with a simple algorithm and still accommodate a counting sequence. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/102 "2014-03-02T08:43:08Z")
What the hell is this thread actually _ **about** _? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/103 "2014-03-02T08:53:42Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What the hell is this thread actually _ **about** _? The dangers of excessive mind altering substance abuse. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/104 "2014-03-02T09:02:39Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What the hell is this thread actually _ **about** _? a) All ethical debates boil down to one central issue: Suicide. Since girls won’t give sex to nice guys, the suicide rate is increasing at an astounding rate among men because withholding sex is the worst possible thing you can do to someone. The suicide rate is also increasing among women because this withholding of sex causes men to take out their frustration by abusing women thereby making them suicidal. _ **I SHIT YOU NOT** _ - this is actually his supposition. b) Like our OP in the [speed of light threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=716675) he thinks he has discovered some astounding truth in a topic that he has zero education in, and like our other poster he becomes dismissive when the errors are pointed out because the rest of the world is simply too dense to see his genius revelation which will overturn some fundamental understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/105 "2014-03-02T09:13:05Z")
I don’t think anyone would disagree that a world in which fewer people felt the need to end their own lives would be a better world in at least some ways. But that’s not a ‘solution’ to ethics - it’s a statement of the obvious. And probably a vast oversimplification anyway. Why would it be unethical for a person with an incurable disease that has an unpleasant prognosis be acting unethically if they made a calm and reasoned decision to bring their life to an end at some point? And all this ‘nice guy’ shit? If at any point you find yourself saying “See, this is the problem with all women…” - then the problem isn’t women. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/106 "2014-03-02T09:19:03Z")
Yep. He’s pegged suicide as the one and only measurement of the ethical nature of any argument, his meta-ethics. His answer to this meta-ethical conundrum is that girls should fuck nice guys. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/107 "2014-03-02T09:27:58Z")
I think we could condense that down to: “Sometimes I get so frustrated that girls won’t fuck me, I want to kill myself. How is this fair?” ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/108 "2014-03-02T09:31:36Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > I have for 20 years typed more nonsense than most people have typed truths . . . I can totally believe this much. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/109 "2014-03-02T09:40:20Z")
The point is, I’m a pimp. [And pimps don’t commit suicide.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0IexZXHyCE) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/110 "2014-03-02T10:44:32Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > Doing something for religious reasons is not doing something of sound mind. Can we see your evidence for this claim? Or are you blatantly begging the questions? > [@](#): > > For example, the basic tenet of all religions is faith above all else in the word of what is assumed to be a creator that made us in its image. Absolute tripe. Almost no religions believe such a thing. I can only think of the Abrahamic faiths that this statment os true of. Can you please provide evidence that, for example, a basic tenet of Buddhism is faith above all else in the word of what is assumed to be a creator that made us in its image? > [@](#): > > If the creator made us in its image, than it values faith more than anything else for itself because this is what it asks most from us… That seems to be a non sequitur coupled with an undivided middle… Even in Christianity, which you seem to think is all religion, the creator asks many thing from us, including sexual abstinence and love for our fellow man. So why do you believe that the Christian creator values faith more than abstinence of love for our fellow man? And even if a creator did only ask of us that we have faith, how is that evidence that this is all the creator values? The only thing i ask of my mechanic is that he repair my car. Can that be taken as evidence that I value a working car more than my own health? This whole position is a confused jumble of non sequitur, undivided middle, begging the question and outright ignorance of theology. > [@](#): > > …which directly contradicts the assumed properties of omnipotence and omniscience… How does that follow in any way at all? Even if we accept your confused and baseless argument to this point, why couldn’t an omnipotent and omniscient being value faith above all else? This is yet another total non sequitur > [@](#): > > … which contradicts it’s authority to give commands. Yet another non sequitur. My boss is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Yet he still has the authority to give commands. > [@](#): > > People who don’t commit suicide because of this faith in what they believe to be a word from a creator are contradicting themselves… Can you explain the contradiction? > [@](#): > > and are not making a rational decision. So you concede that people can not commit suicide despite suicide being the rational choice? That all by itself trashes your entire argument. You’ve conceded that many people are committing suicide when it is irrational. And now you concede that many people refuse to commit suicide when \*that \*is irrational. You’ve conceded that a society can be hideously unhappy and unethical, and yet the suicide rate is nil because everybody is irrational. As such, we can not use the rate of suicide as a measure of happiness or a metric for ethics. QED. You have refuted your own position with one sentence. > [@](#): > > The Heaven’s Gate Cult did vote themselves out of this system, that they decided to vote themselves into another system does not change that they voted themselves out of this one. But such a system can not actually exist. So once again, you refute your own position. It would be possible for a society to exist that has maximal happiness and is ethically optimal, where the population consists of 10% Heaven’s Gate members. This is society A. And it would be possible for a society to exist that is identical the the present day USA, where the population consists of\<0.001% eaven’s Gate members. This is society B. The suicide rate in society A will be 10%, because no matter how good a human society, it will fall short of what the Heaven’s Gate ideal. The suicide rate in society B will be just 0.001% because, well, it’s the same as the USA. So suicide rate is not a reliable metric for happiness in some societies. Once again, your position is readily disproven. You really haven’t thought to long about this, have you? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/111 "2014-03-02T10:47:09Z")
> [@turtlescanfly](#): > > Also, I don’t follow the logic of “if the creator made us in his own image, then it values faith more than anything else”, let alone your assertion that if faith is most important it undermines omnipotence/omniscience, and if that is absent then there is no authority to give commands. It’s like saying “if the sky is blue, then hippos are fat, and if hippos are fat then monkeys must like bananas, and if monkeys like bananas, then butterflies are pretty.” None of these conclusions follows logically from its premise. Using such a flimsy chain of “proofs” doesn’t prove anything. Perhaps you missed some steps in your logic train? Yep. It’s a classic [Bat-deduction](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatDeduction). Batman: Pretty fishy what happened to me on that ladder. Gordon: You mean, where there’s a fish, there could be a Penguin. Robin: But wait! It happened at sea! See? “C” for Catwoman! Batman: Yet — that exploding shark was pulling my leg! Gordon: The Joker! O’Hara: It all adds up to a sinister riddle… Riddle-er. Riddler? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/112 "2014-03-02T12:07:19Z")
[QUOTE=Ecmandu] We’ve spoken before MGO. Of course, I’m 13 years older and have processed an amazing amount of information since then… truly I am a completely different person. Cognitively, I have aged exponentially. [/QUOTE] I would still like to know what you’re referring to here, because: My username isnt MGO (Man Get Out). Anyone who knows me ought to know this. My join date here was about 13 years ago, so are you just bluffing based on that? ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/113 "2014-03-02T18:43:00Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Can we see your evidence for this claim? Or are you blatantly begging the questions? > > Absolute tripe. Almost no religions believe such a thing. I can only think of the Abrahamic faiths that this statment os true of. > > Can you please provide evidence that, for example, a basic tenet of Buddhism is faith above all else in the word of what is assumed to be a creator that made us in its image? > > That seems to be a non sequitur coupled with an undivided middle… > > Even in Christianity, which you seem to think is all religion, the creator asks many thing from us, including sexual abstinence and love for our fellow man. > > So why do you believe that the Christian creator values faith more than abstinence of love for our fellow man? > > And even if a creator did only ask of us that we have faith, how is that evidence that this is all the creator values? The only thing i ask of my mechanic is that he repair my car. Can that be taken as evidence that I value a working car more than my own health? > > This whole position is a confused jumble of non sequitur, undivided middle, begging the question and outright ignorance of theology. > > How does that follow in any way at all? Even if we accept your confused and baseless argument to this point, why couldn’t an omnipotent and omniscient being value faith above all else? > > This is yet another total non sequitur > > Yet another non sequitur. > > My boss is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Yet he still has the authority to give commands. > > Can you explain the contradiction? > > So you concede that people can not commit suicide despite suicide being the rational choice? That all by itself trashes your entire argument. > > You’ve conceded that many people are committing suicide when it is irrational. And now you concede that many people refuse to commit suicide when \*that \*is irrational. You’ve conceded that a society can be hideously unhappy and unethical, and yet the suicide rate is nil because everybody is irrational. > > As such, we can not use the rate of suicide as a measure of happiness or a metric for ethics. > > QED. > > You have refuted your own position with one sentence. > > But such a system can not actually exist. So once again, you refute your own position. > > It would be possible for a society to exist that has maximal happiness and is ethically optimal, where the population consists of 10% Heaven’s Gate members. This is society A. > > And it would be possible for a society to exist that is identical the the present day USA, where the population consists of\<0.001% eaven’s Gate members. This is society B. > > The suicide rate in society A will be 10%, because no matter how good a human society, it will fall short of what the Heaven’s Gate ideal. > > The suicide rate in society B will be just 0.001% because, well, it’s the same as the USA. > > So suicide rate is not a reliable metric for happiness in some societies. > > Once again, your position is readily disproven. > > You really haven’t thought to long about this, have you? Actually in Buddhism the Buddha preaches faith to the monks, and he really doesn’t provide logical reasons why people should refuse to have sex and sit around while psychopaths are going around raping and torturing people. In fact, in Buddhism, the Buddha teaches that the BEST life you can take for the attainment of enlightenment is a human body, however, the one of the metrics of the most ethical human life is to never have sex… well… without sex, you can’t have humans! Some Buddhists believe in a creator, in fact when the Buddha tapped the earth as his witness when maras armies were descending upon him, I believe the story holds that it was Vishnu’s mother that sent the earth-quake that spread maras armies away, which technichally is the same concept as the mother of God to Hindu’s. You obviously don’t understand the faith argument… an omniscient and omnipotent being doesn’t require faith - faith contradicts these properties. Faith is actually a pretty universal aspect of all religions, I’ve actually done a little research into this despite your claims that I haven’t. They are contradicting themselves because an omnipotent, omniscient creator doesn’t use faith as an argument, they use reason, it’s a contradiction… doing ANYTHING out of faith when defining the person telling you as the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe is a contradiction, faith is what people ask when no reason is supplied, in fact, most often, not only when no good reason is supplied, but specifically when the thing you’re being asked to do usually has horrific consequences. I have no idea how you got all these “concessions”. In order for the species as a whole to have the best chance of survival and to give everyone here the best possible lives, you need to have a rate of suicide that is zero with a system that makes suicide as easy as possible. That’s how sentient species work… because you then have a system where all of the variety of consciousness’s born here have nobody voting out of the system, and anytime someone does vote out of the system, something in the system on this side is by definition unethical, meaning “bad”. If there is no system, there is no good or bad… it’s the only possible solution to ethics. You all laugh at me about human sexuality, but I can guarantee you that when you get the female suicide rates to zero, when you get the homicides, rapes etc down to zero… that the male suicide rates will stay stable… and you will start scratching your heads wondering “how can that be?” And, what’s more, these suicide rates make for a system that cannot be sustained long term, any system that even has one vote out when suicide is easy, still has some problems to address. And if people don’t address those problems, those problems are going to catch up with the entire population… and if you bury it by making suicide difficult, you can’t actually measure where these problems are, and again, the system crashes; besides being an absolutely horrific thing to do to a person, bringing them here but not giving them a way out if they don’t want to stay. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/114 "2014-03-02T18:59:29Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > You all laugh at me about human sexuality, but I can guarantee you that when you get the female suicide rates to zero, when you get the homicides, rapes etc down to zero… that the male suicide rates will stay stable… and you will start scratching your heads wondering “how can that be?” Oh! You can guarantee it! See, I missed that first time around. That makes all the difference in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/115 "2014-03-02T19:50:55Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > In order for the species as a whole to have the best chance of survival and to give everyone here the best possible lives, you need to have a rate of suicide that is zero with a system that makes suicide as easy as possible. That’s how sentient species work… because you then have a system where all of the variety of consciousness’s born here have nobody voting out of the system, and anytime someone does vote out of the system, something in the system on this side is by definition unethical, meaning “bad”. If there is no system, there is no good or bad… it’s the only possible solution to ethics. Unless, that is, suicide is largely the product of mental illness and a genetic predisposition. In that event, suicide rates cannot be meaningfully used as an ethical measurement. [QUOTE=Ecmandu] You all laugh at me about human sexuality, but I can guarantee you that when you get the female suicide rates to zero, when you get the homicides, rapes etc down to zero… that the male suicide rates will stay stable… and you will start scratching your heads wondering “how can that be?” [/quote] This is the fallacy of “begging the question”. You are using your conclusion itself as evidence that your conclusion is true. [QUOTE=Ecmandu] And, what’s more, these suicide rates make for a system that cannot be sustained long term, any system that even has one vote out when suicide is easy, still has some problems to address. [/quote] Problems, perhaps, but not necessarily ethical ones. The current state of the art of treatment for mental illness is what it is, no improvement in ethical conduct is going to advance that state of the art. Clinical breakthroughs can’t be conjured through wishing for them to occur. [QUOTE=Ecmandu] And if people don’t address those problems, those problems are going to catch up with the entire population… and if you bury it by making suicide difficult, you can’t actually measure where these problems are, and again, the system crashes; besides being an absolutely horrific thing to do to a person, bringing them here but not giving them a way out if they don’t want to stay. [/QUOTE] Mental illness is being addressed, there’s just no magic-bullet cure. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/116 "2014-03-02T19:58:51Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Oh! You can guarantee it! > See, I missed that first time around. That makes all the difference in the world. Anyone else having flashbacks to _Dr. Strangelove_? I’m sure we’re only one syllogism away from talking about our precious bodily fluids. ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/117 "2014-03-02T19:59:18Z")
> [@zoid](#): > > Oh! You can guarantee it! > See, I missed that first time around. That makes all the difference in the world. Hmm… You have to understand that men commit suicide from primary causes more than secondary causes, women commit suicide usually from secondary causes, this is why the male suicide rate is so much higher than the female one. Ask yourself something… WHY do women commit less suicide when they are being raped at a rate of 1:5, and sexually assaulted at a rate of 1:3, when the male instances of rape and sexual assault are MINISCULE compared to women. Obviously, something is WORSE for men than rape and sexual assault is for women!!! Actually, ask yourself why statistically, more men kill themselves outside of concentration camps than in concentration camps, ask yourself why the suicide rate of men in the military surpassed the suicide rate of the general population only after women were let into combat!!! How can it be, that men are experiencing something WORSE than a concentration camp, and women aren’t? What causes male suicide to spike in the military beyond the general population ONLY when women are allowed into combat?!!! All you have to do is look at sex! Someone said that 90% of suicides are the mentally ill… actually they misrepresented the facts… because if you look up the most common reason that supplies for suicidal ideation… the top two are “lack of a sexual partner” and “loss of a job” Now… since males commit much more suicide than women… there must be something that causes “lack of partner” and “loss of a job” more male suicidal ideation than female suicidal ideation… there must be something about these two metrics in particular that apply much more to men than women. BY FAR there are more men on earth who’ve NEVER had sex, who want sex, than there are women. When we’re talking sexual equilibriums, there are WAY more men who haven’t even come close to meeting their sexual equilibriums than there are women… and THIS is what’s causing the suicide. I can tell you, if we had a polyamorous society, and in this polyamorous society (sex tends to bind communities) we had communities raising children instead of two parents, and the least sexually aggressive men got the most sexual choice, that the most aggressive men would start to become less aggressive and we’d be living in a better world. You cannot see the big picture, and you will laugh, and laugh, and laugh… that is the female denial system laughing for you, not what’s actually true, that’s what your cognition is sexually blackmailed to do from women’s sexual consent structure and denial system. If you REALLY want to solve suicide, you need to look at why women have less suicide than men do… and the reason is, because 90% of women are getting enough sexual variety and getting their equilibriums met and the opposite is true of men, 90% of them are not getting their sexual equilibriums met, and the kicker that REALLY causes the suicides in men… is that the 90% of women who get the sexual choice are the LEAST aggressive members of their gender and the 90% of men who DON’T get sexual equilibriums men are the LEAST aggressive members of their gender. Women don’t experience targeted sexual discrimination for preventing rape and war and suicide… men DO! This causes existential suicide (life has no meaning - it’s all shit- and there’s no reason to stay here if only the assholes get the most sexual choice - because that means that not only is this world shit, it will continue to stay shit) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/118 "2014-03-02T20:28:24Z")
> [@Ecmandu](#): > > Hmm… You have to understand that men commit suicide from primary causes more than secondary causes, women commit suicide usually from secondary causes, this is why the male suicide rate is so much higher than the female one. Cite? [QUOTE=Ecmandu] Ask yourself something… WHY do women commit less suicide when they are being raped at a rate of 1:5, and sexually assaulted at a rate of 1:3, when the male instances of rape and sexual assault are MINISCULE compared to women. [/quote] Because rape and sexual assault don’t cause suicide, mental illness and a genetic predisposition to impulsive behavior do. [QUOTE=Ecmandu] Obviously, something is WORSE for men than rape and sexual assault is for women!!! [/quote] Mental illness, and a genetic predisposition to impulsive behavior. [QUOTE=Ecmandu] Actually, ask yourself why statistically, more men kill themselves outside of concentration camps than in concentration camps, ask yourself why the suicide rate of men in the military surpassed the suicide rate of the general population only after women were let into combat!!! [/quote] Cite? [QUOTE=Ecmandu] How can it be, that men are experiencing something WORSE than a concentration camp, and women aren’t? What causes male suicide to spike in the military beyond the general population ONLY when women are allowed into combat?!!! All you have to do is look at sex! [/quote] Men are more prone to some forms of mental illness. [QUOTE=Ecmandu] Someone said that 90% of suicides are the mentally ill… actually they misrepresented the facts… because if you look up the most common reason that supplies for suicidal ideation… the top two are “lack of a sexual partner” and “loss of a job” Now… since males commit much more suicide than women… there must be something that causes “lack of partner” and “loss of a job” more male suicidal ideation than female suicidal ideation… there must be something about these two metrics in particular that apply much more to men than women. [/quote] That was me, and I didn’t misrepresent anything. You’re making it abundantly clear that you’ve done little to no research on suicide, since you’re confusing a trigger event with the underlying cause of a suicide. People who aren’t mentally ill can endure the same trigger events that would drive a mentally ill person to suicide. I suggest you read the Neurobiology of Suicide article I linked to, you might learn something. Oh, and cite? [QUOTE=Ecmandu] BY FAR there are more men on earth who’ve NEVER had sex, who want sex, than there are women. [/quote] Cite? > [@Ecmandu](#): > > When we’re talking sexual equilibriums, there are WAY more men who haven’t even come close to meeting their sexual equilibriums than there are women… and THIS is what’s causing the suicide. What’s a sexual equilibrium? Number of partners? Oh, and cite? > [@Ecmandu](#): > > I can tell you, if we had a polyamorous society, and in this polyamorous society (sex tends to bind communities) we had communities raising children instead of two parents, and the least sexually aggressive men got the most sexual choice, that the most aggressive men would start to become less aggressive and we’d be living in a better world. I can tell you that we’re all just crystals dreaming of having bodies. Anyone can tell anyone anything. Without evidence, it’s meaningless. > [@Ecmandu](#): > > You cannot see the big picture, and you will laugh, and laugh, and laugh… that is the female denial system laughing for you, not what’s actually true, that’s what your cognition is sexually blackmailed to do from women’s sexual consent structure and denial system. > > If you REALLY want to solve suicide, you need to look at why women have less suicide than men do… and the reason is, because 90% of women are getting enough sexual variety and getting their equilibriums met and the opposite is true of men, 90% of them are not getting their sexual equilibriums met, and the kicker that REALLY causes the suicides in men… is that the 90% of women who get the sexual choice are the LEAST aggressive members of their gender and the 90% of men who DON’T get sexual equilibriums men are the LEAST aggressive members of their gender. I get that you believe all this, but without evidence, why should you expect anyone else to believe it? > [@Ecmandu](#): > > Women don’t experience targeted sexual discrimination for preventing rape and war and suicide… men DO! No, they don’t. > [@Ecmandu](#): > > This causes existential suicide (life has no meaning - it’s all shit- and there’s no reason to stay here if only the assholes get the most sexual choice - because that means that not only is this world shit, it will continue to stay shit) There’s a reason suicide, or anything else, is studied in a controlled, scholarly fashion. It’s because learning what’s true requires shielding ourselves, as much as possible, from our own biases. You’re engaged in writing a narrative, not science, or scholarship. You believe these things because you want to believe them. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/119 "2014-03-02T20:30:23Z")
Youre not the member formerly known as **Justhink** , are you? ---
**Author:** ![Ecmandu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Ecmandu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ecmandu)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566/120 "2014-03-02T22:36:51Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Cite? > > Because rape and sexual assault don’t cause suicide, mental illness and a genetic predisposition to impulsive behavior do. > > Mental illness, and a genetic predisposition to impulsive behavior. > > Cite? > > Men are more prone to some forms of mental illness. > > That was me, and I didn’t misrepresent anything. You’re making it abundantly clear that you’ve done little to no research on suicide, since you’re confusing a trigger event with the underlying cause of a suicide. People who aren’t mentally ill can endure the same trigger events that would drive a mentally ill person to suicide. I suggest you read the Neurobiology of Suicide article I linked to, you might learn something. > > Oh, and cite? > > Cite? > > What’s a sexual equilibrium? Number of partners? > > Oh, and cite? > > I can tell you that we’re all just crystals dreaming of having bodies. Anyone can tell anyone anything. Without evidence, it’s meaningless. > > I get that you believe all this, but without evidence, why should you expect anyone else to believe it? > > No, they don’t. > > There’s a reason suicide, or anything else, is studied in a controlled, scholarly fashion. It’s because learning what’s true requires shielding ourselves, as much as possible, from our own biases. You’re engaged in writing a narrative, not science, or scholarship. You believe these things because you want to believe them. You are dead wrong about what causes suicide… you can make ANYONE commit suicide in the right conditions… if you place people in a room with a shotgun mounted to the wall that only activates when they are the only person in the room, and someone comes in and tortures that person day in and day out… that person, no matter who they are WILL commit suicide. Trust me, I know a hell of a lot more than you do about the causes of suicide. It is torture and low suicidal tension that causes suicide, NOT “mental illness” and a “predisposition to impulsive behavior”. The situation is that men are exposed to more TORTURE than women are in the general population. The suicide rates of concentration camps were miniscule (they could always just make a run for the electric fences, which they hardly ever did) compared to the percentages of males in the GENERAL POPULATION, which means, that there is something about dynamics that occur in the general population that cause MORE suffering than the conditions found in concentration camps. In order to begin to study what this is, you need to study why men do it much more than women do it, because if you can figure THAT out, then you can figure out what CAUSES suicide. The basic thing that causes suicide is torture and low suicidal tension… now low suicidal tension is ethical, torture however, is not ethical. To be more specific, there is something about the conditions in the male population that cause more torture than the female population. I know there is great need to try to label suicide as an abboration rather than a sign of something to take seriously about what effects neuro-biological systems in a negative way, because if people begin to realize that sexual choice effects neuro-biology, they will have to confront the female denial system… and that’s 3.7 billion people!!! Not only do they have to confront the female denial system, they have to confront the males who are being sexually blackmailed by it, that’s another 3.3 BILLION people. The truth, is that sexual neglect of sexual merit is the leading cause of suicide in the world - as a direct cause - not a secondary cause. I have given you studies which can prove it - that haven’t been done - and I given you the sexual distribution ratios which HIGHLY suggest it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-the-meta-solution-to-ethics/682566.md?page=7)