I'm out.
You don't sound to me like you are trying to further discourse. Merely expound. I'll leave you to it.
When do we have the right to intervene
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
hackenslash wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:Macdoc wrote:It IS in the view of current society and the medical community.
On what basis? The only thing for which there are stats are people who don't complete or fail to. What's the evidence?
This is a beautiful combo fallacy, ad verecundiam and ad populum in spades. Until not too long ago, it was the view of society and the cosmology community that time and space began at the big bang, based on incomplete information. This situation is no different. Where are the data on the mental health of people who complete without warning, and how were they obtained?I'd say you have to demonstrate it's not and is not harmful to society/others.
I'd say you have to ask yourself whether you'd apply this level of uncritical acceptance to anything else. This is a lovely commission of onus probandi.By undertaking the act you absent yourself from censure and leave others to clean up the splatter. Toilet training generally occurs earlier.
How willing are you to harm others?
Lovely argumentum ad consequentiam.
So, we've established now that your position is rooted in fallacy. Got anything more substantial?
hackenslash wrote:
What I actually advocate is 'I'm here for you and I accept you as you are, even to the degree that I'll be with you if and when you decide to complete'.
Without acceptance, we can't hope to encourage people to come forward and look for whatever help they may or may not need.
The_Metatron wrote:Is the argument from consequence necessarily a fallacy?
We make decisions all the time after considering the consequences of our actions. All the time.
Cito di Pense wrote:I can try to imagine myself doing something like that with all acceptance, and then again, I would not want to run the risk of being seen as an accessory to someone's demise by the decedent's survivors.
It's a long haul to de-stigmatizing suicide, and then it's just one more freedom the ongoing living will have to learn how to manage. Because of the diversity of situations you're aware of, this encompasses everything from quietly counseling or accepting to getting the mental health professions involved. If I'm honest, I want to be gone before I'm confined to long term care with nurses making daily investigations of my intake and output that sacrifice my privacy and dignity, and well before I'm intubated.
surreptitious57 wrote:
I am a natural coward so I want to go as quickly and painlessly as possible
hackenslash wrote:The_Metatron wrote:Is the argument from consequence necessarily a fallacy?
Yes, it is.We make decisions all the time after considering the consequences of our actions. All the time.
Of course we do, but to argue that something is the case because of the consequences is always a fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance. The projected consequences of a statement being true has no bearing on the truth of the statement.
hackenslash wrote:
It's a constant battle, especially at the moment, because I'm fighting entire governments to solve my issues, and they, being governments, couldn't give a flying fuck about my problems.
Doubtdispelled wrote:hackenslash wrote:
It's a constant battle, especially at the moment, because I'm fighting entire governments to solve my issues, and they, being governments, couldn't give a flying fuck about my problems.
I'm sorry, Hack, but I have to say ... Whut? or even Wtf? .....
Not just one government, but more than one, or even several?
JCOAFPS, but I must be getting old because I can't even begin to imagine any scenario which
Words actually fail me.
It's a constant battle, especially at the moment, because I'm fighting entire governments to solve my issues, and they, being governments, couldn't give a flying fuck about my problems.
hackenslash wrote:Of course we do, but to argue that something is the case because of the consequences is always a fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance. The projected consequences of a statement being true has no bearing on the truth of the statement.
TopCat wrote:hackenslash wrote:Of course we do, but to argue that something is the case because of the consequences is always a fallacy, specifically a fallacy of relevance. The projected consequences of a statement being true has no bearing on the truth of the statement.
Sorry to wander OT a bit, but does it depend at all on the formulation of the statement?
For instance, we often hear arguments from theists along the lines of 'If God didn't exist, the universe would be meaningless and awful" - with an implied "therefore God exists'.
Clearly fallacious, but how about:
"I ought not to pig out on cake, because if I do, I'll get fat."
The first is obviously fallacious, but the second, not so much. The statement 'I ought not to' is superficially true because of its consequences.
Can you help me parse the difference?
The_Metatron wrote:While I wouldn't base a statement of fact on the consequences, we aren't discussing a matter of fact, but a matter of choice. A choice isn't true or false, it is chosen or it is not.
Doubtdispelled wrote:hackenslash wrote:
It's a constant battle, especially at the moment, because I'm fighting entire governments to solve my issues, and they, being governments, couldn't give a flying fuck about my problems.
I'm sorry, Hack, but I have to say ... Whut? or even Wtf? .....
Not just one government, but more than one, or even several?
JCOAFPS, but I must be getting old because I can't even begin to imagine any scenario which
Words actually fail me.
Return to Psychology & Neuroscience
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest