That's not what evolution is nor how it works. There are no strong or weak genes, there is only what works at the time. — Darkneos

That's a feelings based argument. Evolution relies on natural selection, which does decide if your genes are strong enough to keep for the next iteration. We have altered our environment in a way that has disrupted our 'natural' selection.

A trademark trait of depression is honing in on the negative, interpreting things negatively, tunnel visioning on what is negative and being impervious to outside opinions. Such as a person feeling like they are a burden on their family and friends regardless of what they say, or feeling like a failure regardless of what other people think. Your worldview is bleak and dark, because it's being seen by someone who has a bleak and dark view, not because the world is actually as bad as you think it is. Logic is manipulated by emotion and psychology much more than the other way around. I think it's very human of you to notice that in others but not in yourself because that's pretty much your entire explanation for why people disagree with you.

I'm not sure what your motivation here is, you want people to realise suicide is the only sane choice? You want people to realise they only oppose suicide due to their death anxiety or because taking it seriously would challenge their life's meaning?

Yes we do have choices but that doesn't equate to freedom. Reread it. — Darkneos

But if not for choices we would not be free? One would imagine that the number of choices available to a person is directly equivalent to their degree of freedom. Slaves have no choice of their own as it is alway decided for them by their master. Meanwhile the truly free answer to no one. How can you exile choice from the state of being free? It makes no sense. Even if we are free to choice from a limited set of choices this is still more free than only being able to choice from a more limited set. Ultimate freedom being to choose from an unlimited set of choices. I don’t see how the dead’s choices or freedom is unlimited. I can’t possibly see how having absolutely no influence or control over anything is more free than the potential to have control (ie be aware/ alive). What can you do as a dead Person except be dead?

I understand what you’re saying in that being dead means you have no challenges to overcome, no stress, no worries or suffering. But you also don’t have love or happiness or any pleasure. So it’s a question of either being totally numb and void of all sensation (dead) or living and yes maybe suffering at times but ultimately having the chance/ opportunity or “freedom” of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering. One would imagine worldly pleasure is better than nothingness/ emptiness

That's a feelings based argument. Evolution relies on natural selection, which does decide if your genes are strong enough to keep for the next iteration. We have altered our environment in a way that has disrupted our 'natural' selection. — Edy

Again, no. There is no such thing as strong or weak genes, only what works at the time. That is essentially evolution. A change occurs, animals that benefit from it survive and those that don't die. You are making the mistakes folks make when describing how it works.

But if not for choices we would not be free? One would imagine that the number of choices available to a person is directly equivalent to their degree of freedom. Slaves have no choice of their own as it is alway decided for them by their master. Meanwhile the truly free answer to no one. How can you exile choice from the state of being free? It makes no sense. Even if we are free to choice from a limited set of choices this is still more free than only being able to choice from a more limited set. Ultimate freedom being to choose from an unlimited set of choices. I don’t see how the dead’s choices or freedom is unlimited. I can’t possibly see how having absolutely no influence or control over anything is more free than the potential to have control (ie be aware/ alive). What can you do as a dead Person except be dead?

I understand what you’re saying in that being dead means you have no challenges to overcome, no stress, no worries or suffering. But you also don’t have love or happiness or any pleasure. So it’s a question of either being totally numb and void of all sensation (dead) or living and yes maybe suffering at times but ultimately having the chance/ opportunity or “freedom” of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering. One would imagine worldly pleasure is better than nothingness/ emptiness — Benj96

Choice is not equivalent to freedom. There is such a thing as choice paralysis were more choices equals less freedom. In death though it's essentially ultimate freedom as is wipes all that away. So long as you live freedom does not exist. No happiness or love or pleasure is only a bad thing if you are alive, in which case there is a hunger to fill life with it lest you suffer, another reason living is illogical as the stuff that makes it "worth it" doesn't matter if you choose death and freedom from such seeking. Worldly pleasure is not better than nothing.

A trademark trait of depression is honing in on the negative, interpreting things negatively, tunnel visioning on what is negative and being impervious to outside opinions. Such as a person feeling like they are a burden on their family and friends regardless of what they say, or feeling like a failure regardless of what other people think. Your worldview is bleak and dark, because it's being seen by someone who has a bleak and dark view, not because the world is actually as bad as you think it is. Logic is manipulated by emotion and psychology much more than the other way around. I think it's very human of you to notice that in others but not in yourself because that's pretty much your entire explanation for why people disagree with you.

I'm not sure what your motivation here is, you want people to realise suicide is the only sane choice? You want people to realise they only oppose suicide due to their death anxiety or because taking it seriously would challenge their life's meaning? — Judaka

Sometimes one has to wonder whether something is depression or an honest look at life. I know our society has a tendency to sweep the bad things or negativity under the rug, I mean that's what Facebook is more or less. Your assessment on why people disagree is not correct though. I find on here people are subject to the positivity bias or think that logically because you like something you should do it. They can't see how that does not follow. My worldview only appears bleak and dark with that bias, but it's just honest. To see through the "reasons" as nothing more that rationalization of the survival drive, that there is no good reason to live. Yet the drive is very strong and few overcome it.

I do regard what you think, otherwise I wouldn't be replying to it. But what you think is easy to see through.

You may as well ask for a justification to eat ice cream, or any other pleasant thing. If you don’t like ice cream, then it makes sense to ask “Why should I eat this? What do I get out of it?” But if you do like ice cream, you just want to eat it, and you may be willing to go through some hardships to get it, but you don’t need any further justification for eating it: it’s an end in itself. — Pfhorrest

Incorrect. Liking something is not a wish to KEEP doing it, only that doing it elicits a certain feeling in you. It's like saying I enjoy dancing. However I do not dance. MY enjoyment of a task is not a reason to do it. Ends in and of themselves don't exist IMO. There is always some justification for doing something even as simple as eating a sweet.

Enjoying something is the state of wishing to be doing it. It is illogical to simultaneously enjoy something and not wish to do it. Conversely it is perfectly logical to wish for something and to act to realise that thing. Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise. — Kenosha Kid

It's not. Enjoying something is not the wish to be doing it. Merely a sensation of pleasure. That's it. Stop adding more to it. It's not illogical to enjoy something and not wish to do it. IT happens every day. IT isn't logical to wish for something and act to realize it either. Everything you just mentioned is not logic but emotion. All your points are prefaced by desire which by itself is illogical.

Again you keep making it to be more than it is in order for your argument to even function.

It's like saying I enjoy dancing. However I do not dance. — Darkneos

That's the kind of expression that elicits the question "why not?" in a normal person. It calls for an explanation of what un-enjoyable thing will happen to whom to warrant avoiding doing this thing you enjoy. Someone enjoying (or suffering from) something is the usual prima facie reason to do (or not do) anything; those kinds of experiences are the feeling that doing (or not doing) something is imperative, the thing you should do (or not do). All reasons to do (or not do) anything are grounded in such feelings.

I know you keep rejecting desires as reasons, but the only thing that pure logic all by itself can ever tell you is that something is or isn't a coherent possibility at all. It can't even tell you for certain whether anything in particular is the case, never mind whether it should be. Only whether it possibly could be.

Ends in and of themselves don't exist IMO. There is always some justification for doing something even as simple as eating a sweet. — Darkneos

How do you avoid the problem of infinite regress then? (Actually, I expect that the entire problem here is that with that attitude you can't avoid it). If you need a justification for everything, then you need a justification for each justification, and justifications for those justifications for your first justifications, and so on ad infinitum... you need an infinite chain of justifications and you end up forced to conclude that there is no justification for anything at all.

When we're talking about justifications as in purposes, reasons to do things, you end up with the conclusion that everything is pointless and there's never any reason for anyone to do anything. If you applied that same line of reasoning to beliefs, about what's real, you'd end up forced to reject all of those too. Pure logic can't tell you what's real either, only what's (im)possible.

To get an idea of what's real, you first have to understand what you're asking when you ask "what is real". Normally, we're asking for an account of what kind of empirical experiences to expect to be had in common by everyone in certain contexts: something real is the kind of thing that everyone appropriately situated can observe.

Similarly, to get any idea of what you should do, what the purpose of anything is, why to do anything, including to live at all, you first have to understand what you're asking by that question. And similarly, we're normally asking for an account of some kind of experiences that will be had in common, but not empirical experiences, but rather hedonic ones: what's enjoyable about this, or what suffering is avoided by this?

Something that is enjoyable is thus an end in itself: it's its own reason to do it. And if one finds life per se enjoyable, that makes life an end in itself.

Incorrect. Liking something is not a wish to KEEP doing it, only that doing it elicits a certain feeling in you. It's like saying I enjoy dancing. However I do not dance. MY enjoyment of a task is not a reason to do it. — Darkneos

This sort of irrational behaviour is quite likely why you're coming up with nothing for a reason to live. Ultimately the only reason for doing anything is that you desire it to be done: anything else is a contradiction, a failure to reason. It seems to me like you reject this out of hand and are left in want of an alternative reason. But there isn't one. To act is to impact one's world. To act rationally is to impact one's world with a desired result in mind. Any other way of behaving is illogical.

Ultimately the only reason for doing anything is that you desire it to be done — Kenosha Kid

Think about desiring to do drugs or rob banks. Or bite your fingernails.

Desiring to do something (and knowing one enjoys it) is not a sufficient reason to do it, nor to want to do it.
One also has to desire the _right_ thing. The thing that is morally, ethically right.

It's at this point that the whole idea of the will to pleasure breaks down.

Desiring to do something (and knowing one enjoys it) is not a sufficient reason to do it, nor to want to do it. — baker

This has already been covered in the above discussion, e.g.

Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise. — Kenosha Kid

I blame Start Trek for popularizing a false understanding of the term "logic".

They can't see how that does not follow. — Darkneos

Maybe because it does and you havent shown any reason to the contrary.

Me liking something therefor I should do it is not a statement that logically follows. — Darkneos

I like ice cream, however logic doesn’t say I should eat it. All it says is that I like ice cream. — Darkneos

Indeed. logic cannot say you should do anything or not do anything, any more than it can tell you what I have in my pocket. Logic is weak, and it cannot sustain. This entire thread is just a riff on the word 'reason'. It has two senses, the logical sense of reasoning as in deductive reasoning, and the rather different sense of motivation. Pointing out that motivation is not logic is trivial. Nothing follows therefrom.

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that.

You are just saying that what I'm saying does not apply to you, only others, which again, is very normal. That you think you see the truth while others perceive this issue through their emotional and psychological circumstances is again, very human of you and exactly what I expect to see. You're just being honest while others are being manipulated by their insecurities and fears, is that right? Said every person ever.

Death today or death in fifty years, there is no difference but I do agree with this :

o see through the "reasons" as nothing more that rationalization of the survival drive, that there is no good reason to live. Yet the drive is very strong and few overcome it. — Darkneos

I've already argued something similar to this, the question is how is that drive overcome? Is it overcome through distress, depression and negative emotion or is it overcome by, being very honest and logical? Hopefully, we could at least agree that the former can be true, suicides can be impulsive or they can be planned out but people who choose to kill themselves are generally not both calm and happy.

Any good reason anybody has for anything they can only have because they're alive. Any ambition, any relationship, any activity, any reason for doing any of these things is also a reason to live. If someone is excitedly planning out their day, or next year, or looking forward to things they'll get to do and your mission is to tell them that they're insane for not wanting to kill themselves, because, why? All I've heard from you is explaining people away with death anxiety and saying they're reasons are not good. What is your actual argument about why people should choose death over life?

I've already argued something similar to this, the question is how is that drive overcome? Is it overcome through distress, depression and negative emotion or is it overcome by, being very honest and logical? Hopefully, we could at least agree that the former can be true, suicides can be impulsive or they can be planned out but people who choose to kill themselves are generally not both calm and happy. — Judaka

You don't know that. Perhaps they are calm and happy but see the futility of life. I'd like to think that happiness clouds our judgment and makes life appear better than it really is.

Death today or death in fifty years, there is no difference — Judaka

There is a difference though, death today means never having to wait 50 years or dealing with that much life.

Any good reason anybody has for anything they can only have because they're alive. Any ambition, any relationship, any activity, any reason for doing any of these things is also a reason to live. If someone is excitedly planning out their day, or next year, or looking forward to things they'll get to do and your mission is to tell them that they're insane for not wanting to kill themselves, because, why? All I've heard from you is explaining people away with death anxiety and saying they're reasons are not good. What is your actual argument about why people should choose death over life? — Judaka

I've already explained it. Happiness only counts as a reason when you have to stay alive in which case it makes sense to fill that time and make it enjoyable since you have to be here. If you don't it's a moot argument. From the point of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain suicide is still the better option and I think Benatar made a similar point with his Asymmetry argument. Pleasure is not an argument for living because it only applies if you are alive and again only makes sense if you HAVE to stay alive or can't die for a certain time for whatever cause. In death there is no need for pleasure or seeking it out, or disappointment or love, anything really. By any metric for choosing life, death is better by all counts. Pleasure becomes irrelevant and you avoid all future discomfort, agony or pain. There is simply not a reason to live, to be born even. One is thrust into the world without consent and then when they want out society says no because........they don't like it? I'm honestly surprised how you can't look upon all these words people are saying and thinking they justify living.

Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise. — Kenosha Kid

No they don't because the desire itself is not logical. There is no reason one should want to lose weight that is not based purely on emotion.

It's more like they took the appeal to emotion fallacy to it, which is what most of these reasons for living are, fallacies.

Something that is enjoyable is thus an end in itself: it's its own reason to do it. And if one finds life per se enjoyable, that makes life an end in itself. — Pfhorrest

No it doesn't. There is a reason for doing it. It being enjoyable is not an end in and of itself, and the only reason people avoid infinite regress is that they eventually stop at an arbitrary point. Finding life enjoyable does not make it an end in and of itself. AS I said those things don't exist. They just justify living because it's good, until it goes bad.

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that. — DoppyTheElv

Again, emotion. All I can say about eating ice cream is that I like it, but that doesn't mean I do it.

That's the kind of expression that elicits the question "why not?" in a normal person. It calls for an explanation of what un-enjoyable thing will happen to whom to warrant avoiding doing this thing you enjoy. Someone enjoying (or suffering from) something is the usual prima facie reason to do (or not do) anything; those kinds of experiences are the feeling that doing (or not doing) something is imperative, the thing you should do (or not do). All reasons to do (or not do) anything are grounded in such feelings. — Pfhorrest

Pardon but I tend to regard such people as stupid. "Normal" people tend to not question much so such a remark means nothing. I can say the same thing to them about painkillers when they aren't sick. Why not? You say it's avoiding but that implies I am activity doing such a thing when I am not. People seem to have this myopic notion that enjoying something is a reason to do it when it's not. All enjoyment means is what it says, that you like the activity, not that you should do it.

This sort of irrational behaviour is quite likely why you're coming up with nothing for a reason to live. Ultimately the only reason for doing anything is that you desire it to be done: anything else is a contradiction, a failure to reason. It seems to me like you reject this out of hand and are left in want of an alternative reason. But there isn't one. To act is to impact one's world. To act rationally is to impact one's world with a desired result in mind. Any other way of behaving is illogical. — Kenosha Kid

It's not irrational you just say it is so because you don't grasp it. The "reason" for doing something is the desire for it to be done, but enjoyment does not mean that at all. Plenty of people do something they don't enjoy but do so based on desire. It's still illogical as why would you wanting to do something be reason for it? But I digress. As I said, people have a narrow view of what constitutes a reason and think wanting something or feelings are reasons when they aren't. If you want to take it all the way then action ITSELF is not rational or logical.

Happiness only counts as a reason when you have to stay alive in which case it makes sense to fill that time and make it enjoyable since you have to be here. If you don't it's a moot argument. — Darkneos

Pleasure becomes irrelevant and you avoid all future discomfort, agony or pain. There is simply not a reason to live, to be born even — Darkneos

Says you? Anyone can have a reason for doing anything that they fucking please, it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. I can choose to live because I want to take care of my pot plant, that's my reason. "When you're dead that pot plant won't matter anymore" or "Pot plants suck" doesn't invalidate my reasoning, you can't say I have no reason just because you don't like the reason, that's not how this works.

By any metric for choosing life, death is better by all counts. — Darkneos

That's not true and even you don't think that. You've literally argued - and I agree, that death simply mutes any metric by making them irrelevant. If I choose based on what allows me to raise as many pot plants as possible then death loses, obviously. I don't care if you don't like my reason.

You don't know that. Perhaps they are calm and happy but see the futility of life. I'd like to think that happiness clouds our judgment and makes life appear better than it really is. — Darkneos

...

Now you're just dealing with a different set of facts to me, "perhaps suicidals are generally calm and happy"? So you know that anything official I cite is going to be on my side, I can just idk, throw a random link in here:

https://www.verywellmind.com/why-do-people-commit-suicide-1067515

Could throw in 100s if I wanted, polls, experts, characterising suicide the same way but you've got "perhaps" on your side, guess that's even. If someone is calm and happy and wants to die then they're a massive minority who nobody even talks about, I'd have to hear them out to understand where they're coming from but I don't really care, people can kill themselves if they want just don't tell me that it's the only sane choice or that people are just talking negatively about suicide only due to "death anxiety" or whatever.

There is a difference though, death today means never having to wait 50 years or dealing with that much life. — Darkneos

Sure, I'm just saying you're not missing out on anything if you died today.

No they don't because the desire itself is not logical. — Darkneos

Desire doesn't need to be logical: decisions do. Yours are illogical. You love to dance, but don't have any additional reasons for doing so, so you don't? That's not logic; that's just masochism.

the only reason people avoid infinite regress is that they eventually stop at an arbitrary point — Darkneos

Do you apply this same standard to reasons to believe something? Do you fall down an infinite regress there too, or else stop at an arbitrary point? Or something else instead? In any case is that as much a problem as this?

I can say the same thing to them about painkillers when they aren't sick. — Darkneos

The reason not to just take pain killers all the time is the negative (unenjoyable) consequences of doing so. If those weren’t there then it would be a good thing to do.

People seem to have this myopic notion that enjoying something is a reason to do it when it's not. All enjoyment means is what it says, that you like the activity, not that you should do it. — Darkneos

What do you think would constitute a reason to do something? (Even if no such reason exists; what would you imagine if you imagined that such a thing did exist?) What does “should” even mean to you?

Again, emotion. All I can say about eating ice cream is that I like it, but that doesn't mean I do it. — Darkneos

It's perfectly logical to do what you like. It would be nonsensical to say: "I like eating ice cream but I don't because life is a chore." And that's all I'm getting from you. You can have reasons to pursue certain feelings you know.

This has already been covered in the above discussion, e.g.

Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise.
— Kenosha Kid — Kenosha Kid

No, read on what I said:

One also has to desire the _right_ thing. The thing that is morally, ethically right.
It's at this point that the whole idea of the will to pleasure breaks down. — baker

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing. It's about believing, for example, "Yes, it is morally right to eat ice cream".

If one doesn't have that moral certainty that the thing one desires to do is also the morally right thing to do, and is aware of this lack, then the motivation for acting on the desire will diminish.

(This is how people who don't think about the moral dimension of their desires and their actions characteristically don't have problems in this department, nor are they able to emphatize with those who do.)

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that. — DoppyTheElv

Is it morally right to eat ice cream?

In moderation and if you can afford it I don't see why not.

It's more like they took the appeal to emotion fallacy to it, which is what most of these reasons for living are, fallacies. — Darkneos

In one sense, it all comes down to emotions, one way or another, depending on how one defines "emotion". I already mentioned Matthew Ratcliffe earlier. He talks about "existential feelings" and he offers a broader understanding of emotions than we're used to from mainstream psychology. So that's one source to look into to get an alternative perspective on the matter.


However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it.

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing. — baker

What you're describing is a competing desire: a desire to be moral or, hopefully, to act upon a moral impulse.

However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it. — baker

There's that too :up:

This isn't merely about competing desires. It's about being sure that one is doing the right thing, the ethical, moral thing. It's about believing, for example, "Yes, it is morally right to eat ice cream". — baker

You assume that there is something more to morality than just ensuring that people feel good rather than bad.

Could throw in 100s if I wanted, polls, experts, characterising suicide the same way but you've got "perhaps" on your side, guess that's even. If someone is calm and happy and wants to die then they're a massive minority who nobody even talks about, I'd have to hear them out to understand where they're coming from but I don't really care, people can kill themselves if they want just don't tell me that it's the only sane choice or that people are just talking negatively about suicide only due to "death anxiety" or whatever. — Judaka

I think there is a stigma against suicide and that any attempt to portray it as positive by any means is looked down upon or underreported if at all. Think about it, it's your life. Who says you can't "quit" so to speak? We dislike talking about death overall and as I mentioned are obsessed with living to the point that we keep people on life support when they are unable to function as a human being. We even made up afterlives to feel better about it, at least I think so. But that's another can of worms.

However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it — baker

Except it isn't the default. It's a choice. There is a "personal reason" that being survival and fear of pain/death, but these aren't good ones. Most living things "fear" death to a degree.

It's perfectly logical to do what you like. It would be nonsensical to say: "I like eating ice cream but I don't because life is a chore." And that's all I'm getting from you. You can have reasons to pursue certain feelings you know. — DoppyTheElv

Again it isn't but I'm tired of repeating myself. There is no reason for me to eat ice cream even if I like it, me liking it is not a reason to do it. Why is that so hard to grasp? There is no reason to pursue a feeling either by the same logic.

The reason not to just take pain killers all the time is the negative (unenjoyable) consequences of doing so. If those weren’t there then it would be a good thing to do. — Pfhorrest

But that is not a reason to stop. You said if you like something then do it so therefor someone should take painkillers despite the "negatives" because they like it.

What do you think would constitute a reason to do something? (Even if no such reason exists; what would you imagine if you imagined that such a thing did exist?) What does “should” even mean to you? — Pfhorrest

Nothing, because there is no reason to really do anything. However in doing nothing by extension of this you eventually reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore (death). Life needs a reason, death doesn't. Life only goes if you upkeep it, death will come one way or the other without your help.

Again it isn't but I'm tired of repeating myself. There is no reason for me to eat ice cream even if I like it, me liking it is not a reason to do it. Why is that so hard to grasp? There is no reason to pursue a feeling either by the same logic. — Darkneos

It is hard to grasp because it speaks against my personal experience. If I'm hungry, then I will eat. If I am in love with a person, then I will try my best to be with them. Reason being? Hunger and Love.

These are valid reasons to pursue my wants in my eyes. But according to you they aren't. And that's why I have asked you multiple times before, what would count as a valid reason?

If something feels good then it's only natural to want to pursue it just for the sake of it feeling good. Setting aside all arguments one can make about chasing feelings at the expense of others, etc.

I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I'm asking to help me understand what a valid reason looks like to you. I noticed you replied to this question in response to Pfhorrest though.

Nothing, because there is no reason to really do anything. However in doing nothing by extension of this you eventually reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore (death). Life needs a reason, death doesn't. Life only goes if you upkeep it, death will come one way or the other without your help. — Darkneos

So you deny that there can be a reason to do anything and then go on to say that life needs a reason to continue which by implication means that death is the only option. This seems fallacious at worst and requiring justification at best. Or did I misunderstand? If so, sorry.

Do you perhaps mean that in light of death nothing we do here matters because in the end death comes for us all and so we should just get it over and done with?

I think there is a stigma against suicide and that any attempt to portray it as positive by any means is looked down upon or underreported if at all. Think about it, it's your life. Who says you can't "quit" so to speak? We dislike talking about death overall and as I mentioned are obsessed with living to the point that we keep people on life support when they are unable to function as a human being. We even made up afterlives to feel better about it, at least I think so. But that's another can of worms. — Darkneos

Besides the parts of your arguments which are demonstrably incorrect, which you did not even try to defend further, you've got "perhaps" and "think about it" to challenge decades of science and study. Your worldview is not based on logic and honesty as you claim, it's created through a unique interpretation which selectively acknowledges and emphasises pieces of information to create a particular narrative. When in doubt, assume whatever suits you, that's pretty much your argument summed up, we both know you can't back up your claims, that's why it's "perhaps" and such.

You've got an excuse for everything, it's a whole conspiracy against suicide and the evidence or arguments don't matter because of "death anxiety". My last comment, you chose to address only what you thought could be ignored by "death anxiety" yet again, even though your main argument is demonstrably invalid and false. I don't know why you're intent on promoting suicide but I imagine it's a personal story. Anyway, I don't think you have anything left to do but insist on things you can't back up and dismiss facts with wishful thinking, I'm out.

But that is not a reason to stop. You said if you like something then do it so therefor someone should take painkillers despite the "negatives" because they like it. — Darkneos

The negatives are things they don’t like. It’s the not liking that gives a reason not to do it. If you do it, you’ll like it a little, and then end up not liking it a lot. So on the whole there is reason to not do it: because on the whole, it’s an unlikeable experience, even though some small parts of it are likable.

Conversely if the positives outweigh the negatives for you then you have reason to do it despite those negatives.