SleepingSilence

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Lost productivity! The horror. If attempted suicide is unprofitable, people should definitely rethink it.

@Penny

@Penny I just found the dismissal of suicide in that statement being a negative thing on many different levels, concerning. Suggesting it would somehow be viable, if it could become profitable or that's the only negative part. That much money being wasted was just pointing out an non-emotional argument of it being selfish (all the suffering of rehab and trauma of others being other examples.) But if that wasn't the point, fine. But I still just don't like the idea of making assisted suicide legal. Because that really is playing god at that point.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Penny Equally respecting all religious practices. Though yes.

Also, I'm not someone against doctors...(hence why I said "people", and didn't include me anywhere in that sentence.) Both my parents are in the medical field. So when I get into arguments about just how healthy pot is for you, I have enough actual secondhand knowledge to roll my eyes. But I still wouldn't want assisted suicide to be a thing. There's enough frivolous lawsuits given to doctors. They don't need more. (where's the thumbs up for that pro-doctor message? No? Just when it's something being misinterpreted? Okay.)

That's incredibly arrogant to take it that way. 11 billion dollars is money that could be going into ANYTHING else. And the point of that study, isn't about money but about the survival rate. So all these people do, is make themselves go through a bunch of hospital time and waste a ton of money in the process. It's never going to be "profitable", can't really make someone pay if their dead. My point of bringing up cost, is the defense of "it's hurting no one else," when it's going to very likely financially burden someone else. (especially if it becomes legal.)

"The average cost of one suicide was $1,329,553. More than 97 percent of this cost was due to lost productivity. The remaining 3 percent were costs associated with medical treatment. The total cost of suicides and suicide attempts was $93.5 billion."

sprc.org/about-suicide/costs

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189 Well I certainly might have come across as diminishing the benefits or reality of faith, and I'm certainly not.

@Penny Respectfully disagree. :P

And I'd say, thankfully...because people already think doctors play god...I can't imagine how more accurate that would get, if they could legally take someone's life...

While true, some survive even bullets to the head...it's low, but that chance makes the idea of trying so, especially when you're younger. It's an incredibly selfish decision.

(Self inflicted gun head wounds.)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5175460

For patients who survive SIGSWs to the head, the injuries sustained are often devastating and require multiple complex procedures performed by a diverse team of specialists.

Data measuring the average costs and reimbursements of these cases suggest that UIHC approximately “breaks even” or makes a small profit in the treatment of these patients. This implies that while these cases place a large burden on society—one source estimates an annual cost of $11 billion in lost productivity alone in the United States.

(U.S Study. To gunshot to head.)

communications.yale.edu/sites/default…

A new study, a first of its kind, shows that civilians who
are shot in the head or have other penetrating brain injuries, have a 42 percent chance
of surviving. The senior author of the study, Kevin Sheth, is an Associate Professor of Neurology and
Neurosurgery at Yale. The study, published in Journal Neurology, includes 400 patients
at two major trauma centers.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

That is incorrect.

In fact it is incorrect to say that most Americans are Christian, simply because they claim it. Donald Trump for instance is not really a Christian, by the way he acts. That'd be like calling Stalin a Capitalist simply because he claims it.

Jesus himself says that the road to paradise is narrow and most people won't make it, because of such a lax view of the faith. To be honest, people who claim to be faithful yet don't follow the doctrine are worse off than athiests, for they are pharisees and hypocrites, something Jesus disliked over all others. Jesus himself said that to live the life of a Christian will be very difficult.

To put it simply, if you're a Christian, you need to follow the teachings of Jesus in order to be one. Yes do need to accept Jesus into your heart. However depending on your definition, that is either not all you need to do, or that's an extremely difficult thing to accept. You need to try your best to not judge others, for instance. Do not covet. You need to be willing to sell all other aspects of your life for the faith if need be. You are to value your faith and God above all of your possessions and relationships on earth, and you are to love your neighbor as yourself. Of course, since we are human, all of that is pretty much impossible. But to attempt to live in the faith, as much as you can, is something God wishes.

To say what you said, that it is an easy thing, is honestly insulting to people who truly attempt to live a life like that (me), or someone who made a career out of his faith like my father, who regularly translates Greek and Hebrew texts and spent 12 years of school in Theology.

Christianity is a faith as worthy of respect as Islam or Judaism. Just because a bunch of assholes use the names of God and Jesus while they do shit doesn't make it less so.

@POOHEAD189

I'm not exactly sure where I should start with that one. I agree that those that only claim to be part of the faith exist and many don't practice what they preach. But the idea of the narrow path, is because many lose faith or never have it to begin with. Though I don't know what else you'd need to do, unless you're describing a different subsection that's different from non-denominational. I suppose maybe it's crass to say that faith is an easy path, when many have personal struggles with it. So I'll apologize that my particular phrasing wasn't best, but I only meant that most religions don't require the type of work that was previously implied.

I'm also not entirely sure that I'd agree that all religions deserve the same treatment or respect for that matter. Because there's a difference in the teachings of religions, disregarding extremists. What's actively taught and the prophets/gods and their actions of a particular religion, is important to take note of the differences.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

We are all going to be dead soon anyway, what is the rush? That being said if you are terminally ill and are looking at a slow painful death, I don't think its wrong for you to consider your options.

@Penny

That's getting into the discussion of assisted suicide right?

People that attempt suicide often fail, which only brings them more trauma that they undergo...so it's not even really often the final ending for most those attempt it.

According to the American Association of Suicidology (based on a SAMHSA study)1, there are 25 attempts at suicide for every one success. In young people (aged 15 - 24), the odds are between 100 and 200 to 1 against. The elderly seem a lot more successful at 4:1.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Odin The reason why most religions say it's not good to commit suicide is for the very same reason most atheists would hopefully point out that's not a good way to die. Because individuals affect those around them. If you commit suicide you will more than likely psychologically affect someone else. If you just want to die wait for it to happen. Again the idea you seemed to be drawing to is "Gee why don't all religions want everyone to kill themselves?" Because it's not a healthy thing for a society to have in high numbers...(and not questioning the negative outcomes of it is fairly nihilistic.)

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I shouldn't have to even explain this but the point I was making was entirely theoretical and based on general principles of constitutions. Hence I said constitutions because the US of A does not have multiple constitutions. In Europe constitutions are changed very frequently. The issue I have furthermore with what you wrote is that the constitution for the US of A was meant to be changed according to the actual person that, yknow, wrote it, but people later on decided they were lazy and constitutions should remain the same.

I disagree with you calling what we said nihilism too. It's not nihilism - it's the rejection of natural forces that put forward such 'laws' and 'rights' that humans have to abide by. There is no natural right to freedom of speech and there is no natural body of nature that enforces it. The right to free speech was given to us by someone that decided he liked the idea of it, but it can just as easily be taken away or 'trampled' as MDK put it nicely. There is nothing preventing it. You can say 'it's my right' and I'll turn around and say 'yes, yes it is, but I'm taking it anyway' and unless you have weaponry, economical power or diplomatical sway (hint, you have nothing, because you are my citizen and I can take all that away too) you stand powerless to change that. That's not nihilism - that's common sense. So either you are using the word nihilism wrong, or you are entirely confused about what I was saying. Perhaps both.

Furthermore I am not sure why you think that religion = I have a natural right to things. This is not true at all. I am religious in a broad sense and our religion teaches us we need to work for everything because not even the gods will give us what we want without something in return. Ergo there are no natural rights except the right of the strongest, which is a dynamic variable that changes all the time. If I want something, I take it - whether that is physical goods, ideology, or a right. It's not a natural power giving me those things, it is me taking those things. That's not nnihilistic

@Odin

That could not be more incorrect. They didn't want things to change willy nilly. That's why they made it so difficult to do so, in the first place. If anyone actually thinks that any of the original amendments that we have now that the founders wanted to give the ability to remove them, let alone easily, they fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution and the founding fathers. (But I already said that.) Since we are a constitutional republic our Constitutional Amendments have to mean something. The laws can't consistently change like they would in a democracy when it's the will of the people majority to change the law however they wish to see fit. Hence why the founding fathers found that so evil. Also these theoretical constitutions of Europe don't exist. Places like the UK Poland and much of elsewhere doesn't have a codified constitution. If they have anything at all. Constitutions are not equivalent to laws. Just so we're clear, because that seems to be what you're speaking about.

My point is you're seemingly using this phrase to disregard the rights that others already have put in place. Because saying people don't have rights nowadays just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially in America. Which is why you're theoretically suggesting that constitutions were just supposed to be amended without thought and the Second Amendment could be removed tomorrow if we were doing what we were supposed to be doing. And I'm taking that context into consideration. You're right that laws were created by man but if your religious you have God given rights. So atheists wouldn't try to self preserve if they were living somewhere without any laws that said on a piece of paper that you were allowed to keep yourself alive then I suppose that's on them. I know that some people confuse what should be a right and what shouldn't be. But I didn't think that was the discussion we were having.

Actually most religions do not revolve around the idea of doing good deeds and working to get to Salvation. Christianity, for example, the only thing that you need to do is accept Jesus Christ in your heart. That's not a whole lot of work. (Since we're discussing religion.) The idea that you need to not do something and for it to magically occur is somehow the definition of right, is not what a right is.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Plenty to spin off on here -- most I could summarize by saying "We're a Christian-majority democracy, it's only natural." The laws about who can run for office should definitely go.... but this quote brings up this week's classic mdk rrant

@mdk

Not too ball bust for something innocuous to the following paragraphs. But I will point out really quick that we are a constitutional republic. Not a democracy, the founding fathers were adamant about how absolutely evil a pure democracy is. (You probably knew that but clarifying for those who may not.)

This sounds a lot like the argument that `you can't do x or y because it's against the constitution` but constitutions are changed, literally all the time, and most often without the people noticing. These amendments are the same and so are rights - they can be taken away from you much easier than they are given to you.

As far as I am concerned you don't have a right to anything, and that goes for literally anyone on this planet.

@Odin

Also something I feel like clarifying and adding to that particular paragraph. The assumption that the constitution constantly changes and under the noses of the people. When the fact is that changing or adding an amendment to the Constitution is the hardest thing you can do, and was purposely designed that way by the creators. And the last time it actually had anything change about it was in 1992. (I'm also pretty sure that there hasn't ever been a scenario where an amendment has been outright removed.) if you're really want to get into the more recent Amendments that were added later, you could get into that Constitutional argument.

I feel like that nihilistic idea doesn't really even make that much sense, especially if you're religious. Saying you don't have a right to anything, like self-preservation goes against the concept of humanity itself.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I agree with this. 'Morals' are a human invention, and every society has a different set of morals. You can't call an act of another country or it's citizens 'wrong' just because it breaks the moral code of the United States. In the UK, most people aren't allowed to bear arms at all, period. If an armed gunman broke into their house, they couldn't shoot back. A man from the US might see this as wrong. Conversely a man from the UK sees an average American family owning a gun that the children could possibly get access to as wrong.

@Silver Carrot

When bringing up Christianity into the U.S government and into the idea of everyone already has morals and doesn't need religion for it. Going into the basics of don't kill your fellow man, don't steal Etc. Ignores that there's a lot of carnal instincts that Christianity philosophy goes against. Being merciful isn't a normal behavior for someone to just have. Loving your enemy. Etc. There's someone that does a much better job at going into this and until I can actually post videos I'll leave it at that.

I will say you can most certainly dictate better morality from other countries in comparison to others. I don't care where you are, throwing someone off a rooftop because they're gay isn't correct and should be scrutinized. Until it is scrubbed from the Earth. You can certainly judge other countries with completely screwed up moralities, criticizing it's the only way you can fix a problem. The reason our country has freedoms like the First and Second Amendment and others don't, is because they never intended to have freedom like that...because the United States was started and built differently from all those other countries. And yes they did it through a Christian lense.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I feel like you don't need to be a Christian, or even bring it up. You just need intellectual honestly to understand that an abortion is terminating a life. Especially so, after 5 weeks when it has its own seperate heartbeat. And that avoiding that whenever possible would be beneficial and more moral to do basically anything else. Contraceptives exist and are dirt cheap to free depending where you go. The cases for rape are incredibly minut compared to the abortions actively happening. Almost always done for financial reasons, like getting in the way of their college degree. When people bring up the health of the mother it's often referring to psychological stress of taking care of a child. (which literally most mothers have.) Opposed to like dying on the operating table, which what they want you to think.

The problem isn't with the gray area. Often when debating pro-life vs pro-choice the opposition isn't being honest, they devalue the life and don't want any Middle Ground. And they want no limits on abortion. I like to try to give some gray area slack to this issue. But often the people who are discussing it are morally repugnant or in complete denial when discussing the issue.



That doesn't even get into that it shouldn't be taxpayer-funded argument or bringing up the history of why Planned Parenthood exists. Which was founded by someone who wanted to commit genocide against the race of people. To the fact that right now there are buildings carefully placed for insidious reasons, where they expect to get the most custom. Like tobacco companies putting places to sell cigarettes near school buildings. Smoke, no I don't hate you or even have a problem with you but you have to acknowledge that's gross.

There's also an interview on the same person's channel performing an interview with someone who used to work there who was specifically instructed to sell abortion. So I'm sure this comes off abrasively, I'm sorry but these conversations rarely go well. The more extreme I see the pro-side getting in it's arguments, the farther I go to the other side with this issue.