Menu
Home
Forums
Visual works
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Info & rules
Site rules
Server list
Sanctuary Discord
Sanctuary FAQ
Sanctuary's origins
Staffing policies
Sanctuary YouTube
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Banned members
User verification codes
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found
here.
If you have any questions, try our FAQ
here
or see our video on
why this site exists at all!
Home
Forums
Main Sub-Forums
Spurious Generalities
An Analysis of Suicide Methods
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
Reply to thread
Message
<p>[QUOTE="Arnox, post: 14452, member: 1"]</p><p>But you have to keep in mind though, there ARE massive disclaimers right at the beginning of this thread in capital, bolded, and underlined words. Hell, you can't even click to get to the guide without first going through ANOTHER disclaimer saying the exact same thing. I was extremely explicit about why this is (very usually) a terrible idea. The only other way I could have made it even more prominent was to jack up the font size to 16.</p><p></p><p>Another thing is that when I ask if something should be against the rules, I'm not asking if that something is disagreeable or silly. <strong>What is banned on Sanctuary is banned because it has been discussed and found that there is no sufficient ambiguity and also, that there are no legitimate justified scenarios whatsoever for the thing being banned.</strong> (I should probably add that to the site rules introduction.) "Common sense" is not enough of a justification here. For example, some would say that it is common sense for "hate speech" to be banned, but we at Sanctuary all know why that is false. We do not ban things just to make ourselves feel better or more comfortable. So that's what I'm asking. When I ask whether something should be banned, what I'm actually asking is, "Is there absolutely no legitimate justification whatsoever for suicide, period?"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Alright then. Let's get into it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This goes back to Houseman's <a href="https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/would-you-a-molest-a-child-to-save-its-life.1351/">Would you molest a child to save its life?</a> thread. And my response to that is my response to you. I'm not gonna do it unless I know the kid is fully aware of what exactly will happen. Yes, even if it means they die. By the way, this is also completely putting aside the fact that this scenario is almost completely ridiculous and the chances of it happening are so extremely remote that it's not worth seriously considering.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Pirating can potentially cause financial harm. Or how about <a href="https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/common-area-infiltration-tactics.507/">Common Area Infiltration Tactics</a>? That could easily cause harm in the wrong hands. Or how about even just a simple guide on how to write persuasively? This can be used to convince people to believe lies and engage in cultish practices. Being able to write incredibly persuasively is far more dangerous knowledge in my opinion than any of the above. All of these things can cause real legitimate harm.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Freedom is power and does bring with it responsibility, yes, but responsibility for our OWN actions, not the actions of others. For effective freedom, citizens must be informed, and that information includes potentially dangerous information. Now, it is true that some information gives more power than other pieces of information and sometimes, as discussed in my old thread, <a href="https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/on-freedom-of-information-how-much-is-too-much.1050/">On Freedom of Information: How Much is Too Much?</a>, there are some pieces of information, such as personal information, that have too many issues with their free release. But I do not see why a thread on various methods of suicide has too many issues with it for release.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that outcome may or may not be justified just as the outcome of, say, posting a video on self-defense tactics may or may not be justified.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But a pedophile could go into that thread and easily get the wrong idea, thinking, "Oh, my sexual urges are natural so they're absolutely fine to carry out!" So the thread is sufficiently dangerous to warrant deletion, right?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If those urges are acted on, someone else not only gets hurt but gets deeply scarred and affected by them. Suicide is a decision regarding your own life. Taking it CAN absolutely scar others as well that care about you, but sometimes, there are scenarios where a person is suffering so deeply with no end in sight and it would be better for all parties that suicide is done so that the suiciding person doesn't have to suffer any further massive pain. For example, a person might suffer massive chronic pain and they can't even live their lives to a basic degree and there is no cure. And it's easy to say, "They need to just take the pain," but such massive constant stress can make you into a shell of a person.</p><p></p><p>Now in that case, the suicide should be discussed with loved ones for sure if at all possible, but sometimes, even this is not the case. Perhaps you're a prisoner of war being tortured while rotting in a concentration camp in some dictatorial shithole of a country. Maybe nobody from your country even knows you're there. Or maybe you're about to die, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's gonna happen. It's only a question of how much short time you have. And you know that if you don't commit suicide, you are going to suffer very deeply before you die. Or how about many kinds of dementia? The person is lucid for much of it, but towards the end, they will turn into a shell of their former selves, not even able to basically function before they finally die. Should everyone have to live through ALL of that suffering?</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Arnox, post: 14452, member: 1"] But you have to keep in mind though, there ARE massive disclaimers right at the beginning of this thread in capital, bolded, and underlined words. Hell, you can't even click to get to the guide without first going through ANOTHER disclaimer saying the exact same thing. I was extremely explicit about why this is (very usually) a terrible idea. The only other way I could have made it even more prominent was to jack up the font size to 16. Another thing is that when I ask if something should be against the rules, I'm not asking if that something is disagreeable or silly. [B]What is banned on Sanctuary is banned because it has been discussed and found that there is no sufficient ambiguity and also, that there are no legitimate justified scenarios whatsoever for the thing being banned.[/B] (I should probably add that to the site rules introduction.) "Common sense" is not enough of a justification here. For example, some would say that it is common sense for "hate speech" to be banned, but we at Sanctuary all know why that is false. We do not ban things just to make ourselves feel better or more comfortable. So that's what I'm asking. When I ask whether something should be banned, what I'm actually asking is, "Is there absolutely no legitimate justification whatsoever for suicide, period?" Alright then. Let's get into it. This goes back to Houseman's [URL='https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/would-you-a-molest-a-child-to-save-its-life.1351/']Would you molest a child to save its life?[/URL] thread. And my response to that is my response to you. I'm not gonna do it unless I know the kid is fully aware of what exactly will happen. Yes, even if it means they die. By the way, this is also completely putting aside the fact that this scenario is almost completely ridiculous and the chances of it happening are so extremely remote that it's not worth seriously considering. Pirating can potentially cause financial harm. Or how about [URL='https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/common-area-infiltration-tactics.507/']Common Area Infiltration Tactics[/URL]? That could easily cause harm in the wrong hands. Or how about even just a simple guide on how to write persuasively? This can be used to convince people to believe lies and engage in cultish practices. Being able to write incredibly persuasively is far more dangerous knowledge in my opinion than any of the above. All of these things can cause real legitimate harm. Freedom is power and does bring with it responsibility, yes, but responsibility for our OWN actions, not the actions of others. For effective freedom, citizens must be informed, and that information includes potentially dangerous information. Now, it is true that some information gives more power than other pieces of information and sometimes, as discussed in my old thread, [URL='https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/on-freedom-of-information-how-much-is-too-much.1050/']On Freedom of Information: How Much is Too Much?[/URL], there are some pieces of information, such as personal information, that have too many issues with their free release. But I do not see why a thread on various methods of suicide has too many issues with it for release. And that outcome may or may not be justified just as the outcome of, say, posting a video on self-defense tactics may or may not be justified. But a pedophile could go into that thread and easily get the wrong idea, thinking, "Oh, my sexual urges are natural so they're absolutely fine to carry out!" So the thread is sufficiently dangerous to warrant deletion, right? If those urges are acted on, someone else not only gets hurt but gets deeply scarred and affected by them. Suicide is a decision regarding your own life. Taking it CAN absolutely scar others as well that care about you, but sometimes, there are scenarios where a person is suffering so deeply with no end in sight and it would be better for all parties that suicide is done so that the suiciding person doesn't have to suffer any further massive pain. For example, a person might suffer massive chronic pain and they can't even live their lives to a basic degree and there is no cure. And it's easy to say, "They need to just take the pain," but such massive constant stress can make you into a shell of a person. Now in that case, the suicide should be discussed with loved ones for sure if at all possible, but sometimes, even this is not the case. Perhaps you're a prisoner of war being tortured while rotting in a concentration camp in some dictatorial shithole of a country. Maybe nobody from your country even knows you're there. Or maybe you're about to die, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's gonna happen. It's only a question of how much short time you have. And you know that if you don't commit suicide, you are going to suffer very deeply before you die. Or how about many kinds of dementia? The person is lucid for much of it, but towards the end, they will turn into a shell of their former selves, not even able to basically function before they finally die. Should everyone have to live through ALL of that suffering? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Preview
Name
Verification
What is the first letter of the site name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Main Sub-Forums
Spurious Generalities
An Analysis of Suicide Methods
Top