|
|
#61 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
For your information, US legitimacy does not differ far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Also, Canada has the same laws against attempted suicide that the US does, though we'd probably be more inclined to put people into counselling rather than jail or an institution. Sure we're more left-wing than the US, and generally Canadians seem to be more lefty in general, but my support for individual rights doesn't stem from Canadian law, it just is happily in line with a lot of Canadian law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
FFR Player
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Having a law against suicide in general is stupid. Most of the people who commit suicide are 'rebels' and aren't going to listen to authority and abide my the law as is, so tempting them isn't a very good idea. However, with suicide comes the grief in everyone near that person, hence the emotions behind the laws.
But, shadowcliff, your point is obvious. If one commits suicide than one will be unable to suffer the laws wrath. But like I said, the temptation endured by the suicidal person just for thor laws being there adds to everything. And both of your posts are pointless. Stay out of CT if you're inimit write sentences like that and think they're intellectual. They're not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
People always crack jokes about laws against suicide without ever seeming to realise that without them, these people could never be forced to deal with their problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Protective custody is a joke with the mass of undiscovered police brutality.
But think of the psychology of the suicidal people. Most are a rabble and have a thing for defying authority. Perhaps tempt isn't the best word, but making suicide illegal is stupid. It's going to happen anyway. Like drug trafficing, murder, rape, robbery, intoxicated driving, and fraud. They keep happening and have been illegal for centuries. It's not that suicide being illegal is like the forbidden fruit, it's just that a rebellious person may simply see it as a way out of a rough situation and the chance to defy authority at the same time. Killing two birds with one stone for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#67 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
And did you even READ what I posted? The purpose of a law agianst attempting suicide isn't supposed to be a deterrant to commit suicide. It is to give the state a legal right to force you to seek treatment and help for your problems. If you got to the point where you tried to kill yourself, clearly the best intentions of your friends and family weren't enough to make you admit you had an issue that needed treatment, so the law exists because you can then be MADE to seek help. If you've ever known someone who needed to be in rehab for drug or alcohol problems, you will know how close to impossible it is to make someone get that vital help voluntarily. The law enables the state to step in and force you to be treated. I think you need to learn a little more about clinical and manic depression, as well as suicide. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Though I prefer to leave personal experiences out of a debate, I will tell you, devonin, I have been locked up in metal hospitals twice for repeated suicide attempts. As for undiscovered police brutality, it's more of a matter of it being unreported. Again, personal experiences which I will elaborate on if you do so wish.
Now, I agree with the state right's to force a suicidal person to seek help, but making it illegal is again, stupid. Like I just said, making it lillegal isn't going to stop it. However, putting more money and effort into creating new and more efficient programs for assisting mentally unstable individuals is a much more productive method. Making suicide illegal is like saying sex is illegal (bad analogy but you get my point). Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's going to stop. But putting the money used for enforcing it into making it safer is much wiser. |
|
|
|
|
|
#69 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Let me state it again more clearly: The purpose of making suicide illegal is not in any way, shape, or form, designed to make people not do it. It is NOT a deterrant law. It is a law created solely to allow the state to force people to seek treatment. It is a convenient excuse to enable the state to help people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Perfectly stated. I withdraw my argument.
I do see why it should be illegal. However, I also see why it shouldn't be illegal. I mean, it seems pointless to outlaw something that's going to happen anyway, but I understand the benefits of it. What there should be is a program for the suicide attempters to be forced or volunteer to go to that helps them without the law riding their backs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
The only way to force them into that program is if the laws of the state already dictate that such is a suitable consequence for attempting suicide. Why have to muck around in each and every case trying to demonstrate why someone should be put into one of these programs when you can just make a law that says "You try this, you go here"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
The thing is, there should be a system for helping emotionaly unstable people enforced by the law without making it illegal. Sounds like an oxymoron, huh? Well, the American founding fathers were stuck and had to invent something completely new, so it's not impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Um...the state can only make people do things by force of law. There's no other way for the state to make you do something. What do the founding fathers (Who based most of their constitution off the british constitutional modelanyway) have to do with anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
They were an analogy. I'm saying that they were put in a tight situation. And there had never been a successful democracy (not counting Rome and Greece) and they needed to do the impossible which at the time was to have Thomas Jefferson draft the constitution (which, for the record, was mostly theorized based on John Locke's perspectives). And they did it. They did the impossible.
Well, if you're saying that finding a way to force people to not commit suicide is impossible unless enforced my the law then you're wrong. Think about it. The law isn't perfect. Hypothetically, use a more embracing method of enforcement such as being polite and thoughtful. Like a salesmen. He wouldn't say 'you're hong to buy this or else' he'd say 'hello there. I'm selling this and I think it'd be good for you because...' See? |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
FFR Player
|
Not adding anything new or original here, but rape and murder will also continue to happen despite laws against them. People will always do these things, and though this doesn't go along the same purpose Devonin stated about suicide laws, legal restraints are necessary.
Also, the law needs to be as harsh as the people who want to break it. Requesting that someone please not rob a store or kill innocent people doesn't seem to cut it. Again, not really in the same vein as suicide, but what's the point in having soft laws for hard crimes? The system has limitless flaws, but it got where it is through trial and error. Last edited by Das Mustafah; 04-5-2008 at 06:45 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#76 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Suicide laws? For a healthy person, this law does not in any way affect them. It only applies to the people who are indulging themselves in their trauma, etc. Now, the ironic thing is, why would they abide to such a law when they are not in the (by society's standards) right mind, even to regard such a rule as the law? It seems absurd to have such pointlessness.
However, I see luminosity in the prevention of suicide, say a, like Devonin said, "You try this, you go here." If this was placed in effect, I would think it may violate human rights issues, seeing how it would be forceful "quarantine". In my opinion, suicide as a whole is personal freedom, its an option and a final unregrettable resort that, in part, takes much courage or blight to accomplish. Did it sound like a good thing? By society's stereotypical standards, no. But I do respect those who do it for valid and honorable reasons. Last edited by Zythus; 04-5-2008 at 06:58 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#77 | |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Quote:
Now, zythus, I completely agree with every single word you just said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
So having apparantly admitted that you feel these people are NOT in their right mind, you also think they should be able to exercise personal freedom to suicide? Doesn't really work both ways. Personal freedoms are only applicable when you are mentally capable of making free decisions. Acting under the influence of a chemical imbalance in your brain chemistry doesn't constitute a free choice.
The purpose of these laws is to help people who won't or can't help themselves when it is clearly in their best interests to recieve that help. If you get shot and are unconscious, the doctor is able to "violate human rights" as Zythus said and treat you despite your not having given them permission to do so, because it is clearly in your best interest to be helped, and you are not currently in a state of lucid mental awareness to say so. How is manic or clinlical depression any different? You are demonstrably not in your right mind, and not thinking logically or rationally, so why shouldn't people who are be able to act in your obvious best interests? Treating you so that you don't want to kill yourself certainly seems like an improvement in your life situation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
The only way that your argument is valid is when the suicider has been proven that he/she is deluded by his/her insanity. However, I said that only people with a valid reason to suicide can be called legitimate. And there is the biggest question that I was tempted in my last post to throw out there but refrained from doing so because it may go off topic: Who has the call to say that a person's reasons for suicide is valid? Who has the supremacy to judge a person as insane or is right for treatment?
(In the context that the suicider is sane, by whatever form of judgment.) I said in my last post "(by society's standards)". The problem with it is that the individual himself/herself can justify his/her reasons for suicide as valid when society does not. And thats the significance of human rights, how is it just that another person can forcefully throw you in a treatment when you possess the freedom to suicide backed by your own VALID justification? This isn't only suicide anymore, in general, it is the questioning of society's standards. I'll let you answer my question. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
The only person who can judge the validity of ones suicide or suicide attempt is the suicide attempter. They're the only person who has suffered the individual trauma that has driven them to that point. Because socity tends to shelter itself from the atrocities that are in, many don't experience them. Those who don't are the majority. The majority gets deemed as the 'norm'. The norm dictates the 'abnormal' and deems them as suicidal. Furthermore they deem suicidal as insane. But since thy've never experienced it they have no right to judge it.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|