Gwazi Magnum

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

Shurikai said I read somewhere that listening to country music and video game soundtracks could be connected to suicide.

Not sure how I missed this earlier...

If this was true in the slightest I would be long dead by now.
Game Soundtracks is almost all of the music I listen to.

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

Protagonist said As a Christian, I believe that people created for a purpose. By killing yourself, you're usually preventing yourself from fulfilling said purpose, and that's just no good.

I honestly should of addressed this with my last post but I had forgotten to.
I'm basically also in agreement with what Brovo said in the situation.

But I'd like to add, having used to be a Christian myself. One who as a little kid thought about suicide, but dashed it aside for no reason other than the fear of hell that using Religion as a reason to scare people to not kill themselves, and judge those who do kill themselves simply causes a ton of emotional damage to those who have such thoughts. People who are in this state need to know they are loved, supported and cared for, not that God will hate them for it.

Dark Wind said I'd ask people to not confuse my points with sweeping generalizations. I am angered by suicide bombings, murder, etc. but I am also saddened by them from both sides of the perspective. If I only looked at things from a point of view of contempt I would be missing all other perspectives. And when we miss other perspectives, that is how the cycle of attack, retaliation, and attack is endlessly continued.

I get angered by such act's as well.
I was simply noting it's not as simple an issue as "Man kills others, that man is obviously evil" sort of situation.

Dark Wind said Self-diagnosing is a hazy issue, a person could have depression or not. I don't know the full details of your experience, but even if a person self-diagnoses and that diagnosis is not official, you seem to look at it as though it has less validity. The person very well could have had depression. Remember, the things a depressed person says may not make sense to you and they can even hurt. Super complex thing here, treat it with extreme sensitivity! Again, this isn't something I know much about (your experience, that is).

I don't even know the full details considering I wasn't the one who had self-diagnosed :P
Plus it was something that happened 2 years ago, something I spent a lot of time trying to not think/forget about so my memory is a bit hazy on it at this point anyways.

I'd agree that there is a chance that the person actually did have Depression. But there is a chance that they didn't. I will also note, being on the receiving end where a lot of emotional pain was suffered, my viewpoint on that situation is probably going to be bias.

All the person did was say "I have Depression, I am doing __________ because of my Depression" etc before events happened that prompted me cut off contact with the individual. However, even if in this case the person did not have Depression, there are cases of people who have simply claimed the have Depression in order to avoid blame, or gain sympathy from people. May the specific case I had been one of them or not though is irrelevant to the point that people who do not have Depression and go around claiming they do make it worse for those who actually do suffer from Depression.

Dark Wind said Lord almighty you always have a ton of things to respond to, lol. I appreciate the shout out.

Well I do tend to go on a lot about things. And you're welcome, it honestly was you that convinced me to not look at Depression as simply an excuse to hurt others, so I felt you deserved credit. :)

Religion(s) and Atheism

ShonHarris said
I just wanted to chime in about the term definition of Gnostic. While Gnosticism has been described above as one who claims a deep knowledge, and that is very true, it is also a separate entity within religions as well as this categorical, well, label like it seems y'all are using it. Gnosticism does not really mean fundamentalist nor completely sold on an idea. Speaking to Christianity specifically, a Gnostic Christian would not be the majority and in fact has historically been separated as far from the Christian body as possible. Gnostic as a secular term pretty much works how I'm seeing y'all define it above. It just might be worth noting that gnosticism within faiths often means looking past the literal and seeking deeper, likely metaphorical meanings in the mythos of a faith-community. Again, keeping Christianity as a example to speak from, a Gnostic might see the world and the description of a Messiah as less a physical account of a man, and instead as an allegory meant to point a truth. Christianity lends well gnosticism too, what with a prime religious figure speaking almost entirely in allegory and metaphor and rarely, if ever, giving a straight answer. The idea is that the initiated are granted something more. I actually picked up a Gnostic Bible a couple months ago. While studying Judeo-Christian iconography and history I always found the Gnostics far more accepting and a generally compelling idea. Only now have I had the opportunity to read into it a bit more -- worth it if if you dig mythos.Anyway, just wanted to point out the term is used in a few ways that hold loads of meaning. Defining terms definitely makes conversations clearer, it's also worth knowing that these terms do have lives and associations that could inform us too. Oh, actually I wanted to say that a major figure for Gnostic Christians is the Apostle Thomas (Doubting Thomas, 'Allow me to Finger your Rib-hole' Thomas). Assigning absolute certainty under the title Gnostic with a representative like that seems... off. Granted of course, Christianity by no means owns the term. I'd suggest Gnosticism is the seeking of a knowledge that validates the symbolic, seeking it where others may not. It might not sound as clean, but I'd say it works.

Just making sure I understand what you're saying here.

Are you saying Gnostic is more those willing to look for alternate meanings and interpretations of the Bible instead of taking the Bible for what it literally says?

Bullying Discussion

I can't speak for the "anti-bullying" campaign cause I haven't ever seen it in practice.
Though if my area is doing it (which I doubt) they are awful, my High School in cases like fights would punish the victims just as badly as the bullies just cause the victim would defend themselves. My High School also lacked the balls to properly discipline the people who did cause trouble, so they essentially had free passes to even make metal shuriken's in the metal working room, throw them at the ceiling and have them stick there... with the constant risk one could fall and slice some poor student's head open.

As for Bullying in general?
It honestly depends on what you define as bullying.
If you mean people purposely doing stuff for the sole purpose of making another person feel bad?
That shit is just stupid and has no benefit and should stop immediately. I have no patience for those who become a bully.

If it's just a matter of someone having thin skin though? As in they hear another person voice an opinion or mindset they differs from them and they start yelling "I'm offended! You bully!" then that's bullshit.
People should be allowed to voice different opinions and thoughts without being told be quiet because someone disagree's with them.

mdk said
Depending on your definition of 'endorse....'For instance, I think the crusade against 'bullying' is very misguided. Every confrontation is reduced to 'which person is being the bully,' and then crucifixion. I wish more things were allowed to be settled with fights. I think jocks are better prepared for adult life than most nerds. Etc. Physical violence, to me, is not as much of a 'no-no' as most people like to act.

Eh... Jocks tend to be more popular/liked by the students as a whole.
So even if the Jock is in the wrong, the student's will side with the Jock over the nerd just because the Jock is 'cool'.
Jocks are also more involved in extra-curricular's than nerds, so Teachers are more likely to get to know the Jocks better than the nerds.
This causing Jocks to get more support once again.

The only cases I've seen teachers be on the side of the Nerds is if they either:

a) Didn't take part in extra-curricular's, knowing students only by how they behaved in class.
b) Were in extra-curricular's, but only in one's that Jocks tend to avoid, and victims of bullying tend to go to (EX: LGBT Club)
c) Worked with students with special needs

As for the adult life argument?
Generally I'd have to disagree. Most jobs these days require skills in the mind, a high intelligence and a good education.
A lot less depend on how fit you are, or how well you can throw a ball. Not to say Jocks aren't smart, but you don't need to be smart to be a Jock, you need to be good at sports.
To a Nerd, you basically do have to be smart, and them be ridiculed by most of the school for it. The only jobs I see Jocks having an edge in are those that are dependent on physical work, and those jobs are shrinking each day as machines (made by nerds) replace them.

The only real acceptation to this rule I would say are in certain towns/communities that almost completely spill effort's/resources to cater to the Jocks.

To use a rather crude and extreme example, that case a year ago where a football team drugged a girl and raped her at three different parties.

The entire town and school went out of their way to cover up the rape because it prevent the Jocks from becoming professional athlete's and gaining renown for the town.
Would of gotten away with it too if not for the fact a hacker got wind of it, and made it his mission to expose the town for what they did.
Hell the town went as far as to condemn anyone who was mad at the rapists for raping the girl, and then proceeded to victim blame the girl who was raped.

Now, like I said above, that is an extreme example.
But it shows Jocks can be basically set in life not cause they are that competent in their own right, but because an entire community is willing to back them because of what the town can stand to gain if those Jocks actually do happen to get somewhere big in life.

If a nerd get's somewhere in life? It's normally the college/university they were at that get's the credit.
If a Jock get's somewhere in life like sports? The town and school they played such sports in get's the credit.

Essentially....

TLDR: Nerds are better off on average cause they have a more valuable skill set for the world of today.
Jocks are only better off if the community actively goes out of it's way to get the Jocks into a better position in life.

Your Political Ideology

In simple terms I'm a socialist.

I think the job of the Government is to aid, support and better organize the people, not to rule over them.
Stuff like Health Care, Education, Therapy, Welfare, Food & Housing (Not anything great mind you, just something so they can stay warm at night) should be covered by the Government.

No one should ever be told they can't get an education, get a surgery, get therapy for their child, will have to starve and/or stay outside in the cold because life gave them some bad luck. Everyone should be in a position where they can focus their efforts into bettering themselves and the country they live in rather than their only concern be about surviving.

Wage Gaps and different wealth levels is still needed mind you, otherwise people outside of general interest and care would have no reason to pursue the more demanding and necessary jobs.
Without proper motivation our society will fall under, but our society isn't doing to well at the moment either with so many people having to focus all their effort in life simply to get the next meal, and many others are dying or being put in special homes because they couldn't get the operation or therapy they needed, we also got people who get born in poor families and as a result are almost doomed to never get a Job because they are have to pay for education all by themselves unless if they get lucky with scholarships.

Suicide, Tragic or Selfish?

Elendra said With all the mourning. I personally find that response to death to be lame. If a good person dies, let there be a celebration, not of their passing, but of the life they lived. If a bad person dies, let there also be a celebration, because they're gone and can't do more bad things. Celebrate life, celebrate death, more parties less moping.This is also why I don't want a traditional funeral when I die. Either throw a party and have fun, or do nothing. If you feel you need to mourn, don't do too much of it. Get it out of your system, then crack a smile and get on with your life.Also, that 'don't speak ill of the dead' thing is bullshit.

That's just not how people work though.
When someone dies, you are losing them. They are gone and you won't be seeing them again.
If you lost a loved one like a parent, spouse, sibling, grandparent, god forbid your child etc. almost no one is going to be "Well, they're dead. Let's have a happy party!".
You're going to feel terrible, you're going to feel like you've just lost a big part of your life and someone that made you happy.

Also, having said parties instead of the mourning is basically another way of bottling up your pain and grief inside instead of letting it out.
Which just isn't healthy, if people don't let out such pain the situation will only end up getting worse for them.
Have you ever heard the saying "Those who seem to be doing the best, those are that are always able to help/comfort others may be hurting the most of all?".

This is not to say they should eventually be cracking smiles and get back into a happy life.
If you forever stay in grief that does imply something is wrong (Though this is very common after losing a child or a spouse), but that grief period is most likely not going to be done until far after any funeral you have is long over and done with.

ShonHarris said
I think it's interesting that we categorize death. Yeah, I often bring that ethereal liberalism perspective, but genuinely, don't you find it to be an intriguing thought? If someone drinks regularly, we look down on it, but do we see it as a slow suicide? Drinking and smoking do receive negative attention, but not as bad as suicide. Is there a great difference though -- perhaps killing yourself over a decade or more is more acceptable than in one motion. As if watching someone die over a long while is more comforting than dealing with the sudden shock. Really though, we introduce chemicals into our bodies, our air, and our water that we know will give us cancer. How is our slow suicide, a thing which we can reject, pay money and vote against, more selfless than taking one's self? This conversation has been had in the Guild and recently. A lot of us shared very personal stories and some of who often argue came together over our shared sufferings. What a lot of us found was that this isn't a simple answer, nor I guess is it really complex. We make a large thing about the abstract notion of suicide and yet the actual thing is an experience entirely different. Some of us have had friends and loved ones take themselves out of this life. But the fact is that while we may suffer, clearly the ones we lost suffered greatly first. So great in fact that they felt death their salvation. They chose. I often declare that choice is the one thing that scares me to lose. I defend that, choice, and I keep a respect for those who choose in good conscience. Suicide is a choice and I can't say I feel right labelling it a right or wrong, tragic or selfish thing. It's a decision I simply hope those who're attracted to it do so with careful consideration. More importantly I think we should listen to people. We're so often caught up in our personal dramas and resentments and passions that we ignore the loving and writhing people all around us. We ignore them and condemn them for needing our attention. Everyone wants to be accepted, just validated if only by one. I think it's more important to listen and consider others than it is to cast judgements about abstract notions. People are absolute. They're here, in health and in pain.

[2]

Religion(s) and Atheism

Jorick said
Agreed. Any stance of sure knowledge on an issue which has no evidence to back up one stance or another is utterly irrational.Ah, yeah, mistaken definitions like that are kind of common, which is what I was saying in a snarky way in the first paragraph of my last post.You've got it almost right.Agnostic = Lacking certain knowledge; "I think so-and-so is true" is agnostic, it acknowledges that you do not know for sure if it's true.Gnostic = Possessing certain knowledge; "So-and-so is true" is gnostic, it claims that you know for sure it's true.These are antonyms that are directly related to one another. As I said in my last post, fundamentalism is just a certain kind of gnosticism.Fundamentalism = Extremist stance in a wider belief, typically that every tenet is literally true and they brook no question. Expressions of fundamentalism are always gnostic statements, because fundamentalists think they are guided by infallible knowledge.I don't see it as a spectrum on which fundamentalism could be a third point, because fundamentalism is a sub-type of gnosticism just as non-fundamental Christians who claim certain knowledge of the existence of their deity constitute another sub-type of gnosticism. The term "fundamentalism" is referring to how extreme one's beliefs are, not certainty or lack thereof of one's knowledge because it's a given that they are gnostic in their beliefs by the very nature of their beliefs. If you want to throw it into the mix, "fundamentalist" would need its own antonym to pair with it to make more labels along with the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic pairs, such as fundamental gnostic theist to describe those who view their holy book as literal truth. Then again, it'd be repetitive due to all fundamentalists being gnostic by nature and the likelihood that all those opposite of fundamentalists would probably be agnostic by nature. I think just using the term for those who are fundamentalists but not having a third tag to pin on non-fundamental gnostics works well enough.We probably would need just as many labels as the LGBT community if we wanted to give one to every sub-type that exists within each of those four major quadrants of beliefs.

So to confirm I got this right.

Agnostic = Doesn't know
Gnostic = Does know
Fundamentalist = Extreme version of Gnostic

mdk said
Poorly-time-stamped video parlor cutawaaaay!!!I like to keep it simple. Do you believe in god? Yes? Column A please. No? Further request. Are you certain that there is no god? Yes? Column B. No? Column C. Now you have your theist, your atheist, and your agnostic, all sorted out (I put them in alphabetical columns). Your move, science!!\\\remind me never again to post in OT when the ambien kicks in. Spam can handle it. I'm gonna go

The very post you replied to, plus the posts before hand just said what Agnostic meant... and it's not in the way you're using it. :/

Agnostic = Doesn't know - Lacks full knowledge

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, claiming not to know for sure if there is a God or not.
You can also be an Agnostic Theist, not knowing for sure if your God is true but simply believing that he is.

Westboro Baptist Leader Fred Phelps is dying

Jannah said
He's not dying, he is dead! No tears shed for him. I've even had people celebrating xD.

This topic was posted back when he was still alive.

Religion(s) and Atheism

Jorick said
I know the meaning of the word agnostic, but I guess I can't fault you for feeling it necessary to explain. Lots of people seem not to understand the meaning of the term, because I guess it's hard to find the definition of a word even on the internet. Also, the four quadrant model of beliefs is typically stated with the paired antonyms of theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic. Substituting theist for religious is misleading because atheists can be religious too; for example, those "there absolutely is not god" atheists and religions like Buddhism that lack deities. Substituting gnostic for fundamental is misleading because fundamentalism is a particular brand of gnosticism and one can hold gnostic belief without being fundamentalist; for example, Christians who absolutely believe in the existence of their deity but do not think the Bible is the literally true word of that entity hold gnostic belief in said deity but are not fundamentalists.

I had honestly just really learned the differences between Agnostic and Atheist only recently.
Before I always treated Agnostic as meaning "Believes in a God, just not any worshiped one".
And being someone who wasn't able to learn that until recently, and having spent several years in religious debates (From both sides) I felt the need to clarify since it is a term that many people have a misleading idea on.

This is all a pretty complex issue though, I grant you that.
Most likely we'll need even more terms and definitions than the LGBT community has (and they have a lot) in order to properly make sense of and understand all the different stances and such people take.

But so far what we have gathered is:

Agnostic = Unknowing
Gnostic = Certain Extreme Beliefs
Fundamentalist = All the Extreme Beliefs

If I'm understanding this right that is.