Except it doesn't happen. Forcing someone to stay alive is difficult even when they are incarcerated. I keep asking you what is your experience of this or what cases can you cite, and you don't come up with even a description of an instance.

And again, even if it were commonplace, what is the relevance to my description of the nature of suicide? I'm certainly not forcing anyone to stay alive, I'm posting on a philosophy site and I wouldn't have a clue how to go about it. — unenlightened

Alright, fair point I should have used a less strong word than “force”. What I had in mind is when someone wants to end their suffering by ending their life (which is rational) and someone tries to stop them, either by social pressure or physically by having that person committed etc.
If you are trying to prevent someone from killing themselves in the context ive laid out then you are in some sense forcing them to suffer (in cases where ending their suffering is their reason for killing themselves.)
I wasnt intending to talk about literal cases of actually physically restraining someone from the act of suicide.
Anyway, It hasnt gone unnoticed by me that you have failed to actually address my points against you here so Ive begun to wonder what the point in wasting my words is.

It's funny really, you expected me not to be responding to the substance of what you're saying, so you responded in kind. Whereas I believe I am responding to the substance of what you're saying, I just don't think you know how your speech functions in the context you're deriding. The mob mentality sub-discussion is a popular trope in the discourse you're deriding and really only makes sense in terms of it. As does the "both sides have good points" narrative. I think you're underestimating how complicit and embedded in the discourse you're criticizing you are; to the extent you're making standard moves in it but still believe you're outside of it. — fdrake

I did respond to the substance of what you are saying excepting where the substance was based off of a misunderstanding or error. You are the one trying to force labels and tropes into what im saying and thereby further reinforcing my point, again.
I do not think im imbedded in poor method of discourse. Im the one pointing the problem out. I think you are over estimating how much I remove myself from the “other” here. Im human too, I make mistakes and have emotions and monkey brain shit like everyone else. My awareness of that is helpful to overcome it and sharing that awareness is intended to help discourse in general, or at least point out the problem others seem to fail to recognise.

But what's the model of me in that? I'm quite happy to be seen as a stimulus->response machine of triggered by problematicness->woke signaling, you don't have to back down from the commitment because it's offensive. Maybe I really was functioning like that, maybe you are! — fdrake

Well you had offered an example of what I was talking about so I pointed it out. Im not backing down, like I said I think you were functioning that way in that instance. Sure, it could be me tomorrow. We must be vigilant against our monkey brains.

I think you underestimate people. Or mischaracterize them. — fdrake

Its grounded in evolutionary psychology, its part of being human. It becomes a problem when people fail to recognise it for what it is, just like when we let primitive emotions like anger control us or a failure to recognise the irrational jealousy our monkey brains fill us with at times.

I did read the rest of your post. I just didn't understand that you were meaning literally a return to a mythical tribal mindset that allegedly facilitated inter-tribal war. I still suspect that you don't actually really believe we're returning to a warring tribal society fighting over exactly why Kanye is problematic, and that your meaning is mostly hyperbole by means of allusion. — fdrake

Well Im not talking about that, its a biology thing not a sociological thing (although related of course, like the two fields I just mentioned).
Thats my mistake, I could have been more clear.

So you're quite happy to characterize me based off of an alleged trigger response, when you could've asked what I actually thought. Instead of doing so, you have lumped me in with the people who follow the simplistic "us vs them" dynamic, and are making an example of me as one of those fools you're so much better than. Great! — fdrake

It wasnt my intention to characterise you in general as a primitive “us vs them” person acting out biological tribalism, but rather to point out an instance of what I was talking about when I referenced the “minefield” of trigger words, ideas and opinions.
When it comes right down to it its not about fools so much as people bring foolish. Like I said, its a human thing, an inconvenient and sometimes dangerous part of our evolution.
A “mob mentality” is a good example of this. People get caught up in something and do things they wouldnt normally do. Thats the monkey brain, the part of us that responds to the energy of crowds and that same tribal instinct we all have.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a bit. Im not saying you are a fool but I do think you responded to the phrase “us vs them” rather than the substance of what I said. (Which I admit, I could have been more clear about).

Also, im a human, so Im not claiming some exalted status as you claim. There is no superiority to what Im saying, no high horse. Its about being aware of something that taunts discourse, thats all.

No, I prefaced my use of “us vs them” with other words that exclude such a simplistic point. Its not just “us vs them” i was speaking about, I tied that “us vs them” to moving backwards and primitive tribalism. Thats when its a problem, when the “us vs them” is born of the primitive tribalism evolution has equipped us with rather than for a good, rational reason. (Such as the case of “us vs nazis” to use an easy example).
So no, your point falls short of what im actually saying.
My point is actually shown well with your response. All I had to do was use a trigger phrase “us vs them” and you ignored whatever context I used in favour of this preconceived context of simplistic judgement to make a point about glass houses. No glass house here.

Mercy and justice are only mutually exclusive in the same instance. One can still possess both attributes and use one or the other at different times (as dictated by whatever ethics the person might have) with no contradictions.

So the first premise in this discussion is that animals are innocent. They are not capable of doing true evil, they did not ask to exist, and they are good because they naturally follow their natures. — Gregory

I find it very difficult to associate innocence with creatures who eat their own children alive, specifically target the young and vulnerable to kill and eat or any of the other myriad of horrors that animals inflict and endure on a daily basis. Assigning innocence or lack thereof just doesnt make sense for animals. They are not moral agents, and those are human concepts we apply to other humans. It makes no sense to have animals in the moral landscape.

Well said, its nearly impossible for discussion because of the minefield of words, ideas and specific opinions that trigger attack mode in one side or the other. Its a disaster, because no ones really trying to move forward anymore. Its all either becoming entrenched and immovable or moving backwards (giving into the primitive, tribal “us vs them” trap.

No, i wasnt making a general statement about some unrelated example of being self centred. Also, you didnt say “sometimes”. The words you used were “totally self centred”.
I wasnt pointing out that other things are self centred too, I pointed out how the specific instance of forcing someone to suffer because you are not comfortable with their death or suicide is just as selfish. This is relevant and sequitur because that accusation of being self centred is being made (in the context I provided) in an act of being self centred. (Putting your own desires ahead of the suffering of the person).
This does not exclude cases where the person is actually putting the welfare of the person ahead of their own such as in the cases of mental illness leading to suicide. (Rather than some intolerable suffering leading to suicide).

Who said anything about assisted suicide? The quote of yours I responded too was about suicide being “totally self centred”.
This is non-sequitur to both the posts you’ve responded to.

What does that matter? A lack of frequency alone doesn't justify ignoring the instances if it happening.

This is bothersome to me, not only as a clinician, but because enabling suicidal behavior as "speech" according to you ought to be a thing. — Anaxagoras

You ate equating speech with behaviour here. The point made was about being able to talk about suicide or how shitty life is, not about the act of suicide itself.
Its about not being judged as mentally ill or immoral just because a persons projecting their own fears or discomfort about death and suicide onto you.

Suicide is totally self-centred just as the phrase I quote above indicates. And necessarily, a self-centred view cannot reach a use, a purpose, a meaning, or a reason to live. — unenlightened

I think its just as self centred to force a person to suffer through life just because other people aren’t comfortable with losing them. Thats just as selfish. Also, self centred views can have a use (to yourself), a purpose (service to self), meaning (very obviously, meaning doesnt disappear just because the meaning is self centred) and “reason to live” can be self centred, in fact reasons to live are often self centered (“i enjoy life!”).
So I think you are wrong from start to finish here, on every level.

What are "bad reasons" for suicide, versus "rational reasons"? — Noble Dust

Well a rational reason would be to end intolerable suffering or as a means to avoid future intolerable suffering. Whats intolerable is going to vary from person to person.
A bad reason should be obvious as well, for reasons inspired by mental illness for example, or as a means to hurt people (“ill show them!”).
The people with bad reasons deserve our help but the ones with rational reasons deserve our respect and understanding.

Well to be sure, both feeling that one's life is useless and attempting suicide are pretty shitty. You should reach out a helping hand to those who might need it, but also give someone the dignity to determine their fate as they see fit. — darthbarracuda

I agree completely. There is a balance to be struck between helping those in need and respecting someones personal sovereignty.
I think the resistance you are getting is part of the stigma of suicide but also of death itself. You gotta get people more comfortable and less afraid of death before you can expect them to wrap their heads around a more open attitude about suicide.

That is a good point, you pull people up not push people down for them to stand on.
I think its a worthwhile distinction to break “privilege” down here. There are different kinds of privilege, and I think there are a few different uses of the term being discussed. For example, what you said above might not seem so sensible if you consider privilege gained by immoral means. Then we would want the person of privilege to lose it...like a politician or other leader. For that matter, what about people who earned privilege? Im not sure it makes sense to always grant an under privileged equal privilege if they arent Earning that privilege...but then that's two senses of the word privilege being used isnt it?
So I think that might be leading to some disagreement.

You should check out Weinsteins podcast, The Portal. Its excellent.

The most glaring logical fallacy is, to me, strong atheism. How can anyone profess to be sure the universe was not created? No-one was there at the Big Bang to witness it, so we must all be agnostic. — FreddyS

How do you define “strong atheism”?
Also, we do not have to be agnostic about the big bang because no one was there. Thats a fallacy actually.

Just Google “logical fallacies”. All the arguments for gods existence are listed under logical fallacy.

Also true.

You joke, but the US military has admitted there are UFO’s, Times did a story on it, video, radar and thermographic evidence has been released and nobody cares. Most people havent even noticed. Covid-19 has hedged it out of everyone attention, or maybe used up everyones “wtf is going on?!” reserves.

So they're going to do interstellar travel, but they're not going to colonize or build space habitats and solar collectors? That, right there, is silly. But here are reasons: — RogueAI

You have no idea if they would be inclined to build those things nor can you have any idea whether they would need to build those things. Those things you mentioned are the kinds of things humans might need to build, but an alien world could have elements and propulsion systems that we do not, they could be evolved to travel through space For all you know and need none if that. This sense you have of what an alien species would build or leave for us to see is based off of anthropomorphised fiction. No offence, but you seem to lack the imagination for the endless possibilities that explain why those things (megastructures and such) might not be present.

1. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. Existential threats exist.
2. You don't leave energy lying around if you can cheaply collect and store it (this goes back to the implication that if interstellar travel is possible, efficient antimatter production and storage is possible). Spare energy is never a bad thing to have.
3. You maximize available computing power.
4. Population pressures (possibly mitigated by population controls)
5. Convenience (there are benefits to space habitats) — RogueAI

1. So? That doesnt mean we would see these megastuctures, you dont even know If they keep the eggs in baskets. They could easily have other ways of dealing with existential threats, and have existential threats humans are totally unfamiliar with. They can just as easily have existential threats we do not, and us with ones they do not.
2. This is nonsense, there could be any number of reasons to leave energy lying around. Humans do it all the time. Again, you lack imagination here. We leave sources of energy lying around because we have better sources of energy, and better technology to utilise the better energy sources. It could easily Be the case we are unable to detect their sources of energy, or any of thier mega structures. (Maybe they dont want to be found)
3. Nonsense again, you MIGHT maximise available computing power but you might not. Again, humans all over the earth show us that this just isnt true. Even if we did, why would we expect aliens, especially more advanced aliens, to maximise it? Do they even have computers? You have no idea, you just assume they do because we do.
4. You are assuming they have population pressures. They easily could not due to a different evolution process, different culture/laws or technology so complex we dint even recognise it. Youre just guessing.
5. How do you know it would be convenient for them? How do you know what benefits this alien species or doesnt?

You said you would present reasons, but you didnt provide any reasons at all. You listed possibilities, and you listed blind guesses.

I counter your proverbial Pandoras Box with the proverbial double edged sword.
All things have negative consequences once discovered or “unleashed”. It is therefore more accurate to use the double edged sword analogy, as thats what most things are like. Double edged. Pandoras Box makes a presumption about the ills but ignores the benefit. Even unleashing evils with not good falls short, because good can come from evil. Good needs evil to have meaning in fact.

You could say basically the same thing about marxist sjw types. Are they a threat?

Its generally bad to have an enemy working against you, and generally bad to ignore any given attack vector an enemy is using.

Lol, Im incorrigible what can I say.

Ya, youre right for once Benkei. My apologies Maw, that was harsh and uncalled for on my part.

Lol. Ok that made me laugh. Your a liar AND funny.

How about you address your dirtbag cherrypicking? You are dishonest, and when your blatant dishonesty is pointed out you just carry on as if it didnt happen.
You quoted half a sentence, and tried to pass that off as a legitimate point. It wasnt, it was a lie. You are a liar.
You owe ssu an apology, and everyone else as well since you and your dirtbag tactics make discourse more difficult on this forum.
Its staggering how self righteous you are considering how little ethic you show in discussion. Shame on you sir. You are the problem.

Well its direct, not indirect. Its straightforwardly denying that state granted right of free speech. Also, not sabotage. New hate speech laws and amendments to the old are systemic changes. I dont know why you would think there is anything sneaky about it, its open, direct and mainstream. They dont have to sabotage something they dont care about or believe in (free speech), they just ignore it because the ends justify their means. Its cult like.

Thats true, the majority of these types of people are useful idiots to the cynical grabbers of power.
I shouldnt say that the cynical grabbers arent sincere believers, its more accurate to say what they sincerely believe in is a worldview that necessitates a cynical grab for power. The distinction I was attempting was between a person buying into a specific ideology and a person who has sacrificed a specific ideology for a specific end (which justifies the sacrifice) where they have the power and control. There is more utility in framing it the way you did though.
Generals and soldiers might be a good analogy.

I cant disagree with any of that. I think it nets a negative, doing more harm than good. In contrast, its hard to see any significant negative effects of Daryl Davies (to stick with the example) method.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you are conflating the motivations of the cancellers, or at least talking about a different motivation than I am.
So the type of canceller that you are talking about are the ones after social control, power. They seek to tear down what is and replace it with their own (insane) ideology/“utopia”. Racism is just one vector for them to do this. For these folks, I think you’ve made your point well, I agree.
Another kind of canceller is purely focused an one issue, like racism or some other ideology they agree/disagree with. Remember I used Meagan Phelps as another example to consider. I wanted to talk about combating ideologies, and the two methods of doing so I mentioned. These cancellers are not cynical grabbers of power but sincere believers.
I think you are focused on the broader battle, while im focused on the method. My focus is applicable in one on one situations and broader ones as well, where as your focus is on the terrain, the “movement if troops” if you will.
Im not saying youre wrong nor that your points are not pertinent, but rather my point is for clarity so we do not talk past one another. Put simply, you are talking about the political arena with all of its complexity and im talking about something much simpler, whether to respond with something “shut the fuck up” followed by fingers in ears or something like “why do you believe that” followed by discussion.
Also, you used an example of Davies work of a high ranking KKK member. I heard him tell that story too but that wasnt his first and his numbers are not a few, they are over 200. Thats not including the people that quit because of the Davies effected people, the 200+ are him personally talking to the members over time. I want to include the broader effect (what happened in the orbit of those Davies turned) in the judgement over which is the better way. (Just like I want to include the damage done in the orbit of the cancellers way).
That was a bit verbose so feel free to cherry pick what you think is most important to respond to, if anything.

I dont see anything to disagree with there. The tactics themselves are immoral to start with but even if we take it as granted that it isnt immoral then there is still the matter of whether or not its anywhere near as effective as the open battleground of ideas method. (Which I dont think it is).

That doesnt answer why Im wring about Daryl Davies way being more effective. You are just saying that most people dint do it that way. That doesnt mean its not the best way to do it.

Well said.

Im very well versed in the incident. :up:

Im not familiar with the example or this Fox guy, but I would want Fox to be able to speak, and for others to explain why he is wrong. That will have a much greater effect in fighting racist views than having Fox never to have spoken at all. Once QT is over, Fox is still a racist and that bad idea still contagious. Daryl Davies has the discussion, he changes minds so that the bad idea is no longer contagious, in fact now Fox is going to be spreading anti-bodies.

Ok, but I meant this as more about ideologies rather than strictly censorship/free speech. In that context, changing names of football games does nothing to combat racism. Its inly about making non-racists comfortable. Combating racism is more important than making a small group (by which I mean the small group of censors, not the minority group) comfortable.

I think the idea is that it helps prevent the spread of these harmful ideas. — darthbarracuda

Right, but I dont think it does, or at least it doesnt do as good a job of it than engaging/exposing the ideology.
The people who are susceptible to bad ideology arent made less so by silencing the speakers, and the majority of people who hear the speaker are not susceptible to it. So Im not sure silencing people does much at all to help, the maun benifit seems to be the comfort of people who dint like thise ideas anyway.

How could it be argued thus? — darthbarracuda

Well because silencing someone publicly doesnt actually stop the spread of bad ideas, it just changes where and how a person is exposed to the idea.
Instead of the town square where the bad idea can be exposed for what it is, the bad idea is spread privately. With no counter-points/arguments, its much easier to recruit a susceptible person into a bad ideology.
So for example, you got Bob the Racist, Jim the Disenfranchised and Ryan the Anti-Racist. Bob the racist tries to infect Jim with his ideas at a public protest or event. Jim hears Bob and it appeals to Jims disenfranchisement but luckily Ryan also speaks, and exposes Bobs ideas fir the hate filled rhetoric designed to tap into Jims anger that it is. Jim realises that Bob is wrong.
Now imagine instead of Ryan, there is Jack the Silencer. When Jim shows up at the event, Bob has been silenced by Jack and Jim is not exposed to Bobs ideology. However, Jim has also not been exposed to Ryans view since that discussion never took place, and Jim is not equipped with Ryans anti-racism. So Jack pats himself on the back and Calls it a job well done. Bob is still out there, Bob is still looking for the Jims out there except now when Bob talks to Jim there is no one to counter Bobs bad ideas. This is ideal for Bob, it makes it easier to get Jim onboard.
In that way, Jack has made the situation worse. We cant know where and how these bad ideas are now being spread. The spreading of these bad ideas hasn't been stopped, merely hidden. Daryl Davies stops those bad ideas dead in their tracks, he doesnt even need to worry about Jim, he goes after Bob. Not to silence him but to change Bobs mind so that now when Bob finds Jim, Bob has a much different tale to tell. Plus, Bob will talk to other Bobs and that is simply far more effective at combating these bad ideas.

Yes, I think we're in agreement this far. The system should be set up as well as possible. Usually, the way this is done is to ensure first that everyone has a chance to make their case, and second that all decisions can be appealed at least once. Of course, there are practical and all too often monetary constraints on how much oversight you can establish. Eventually, someone needs to make a final decision that will stand. — Echarmion

Yes, and I would also say having a someone in place to make a judgement call when the systems rules fail at the primary purpose fir which the system was made, in this case justice, would be a good thing as well.

On the other hand, there is no oversight over the presidential pardon. It's a single point of failure. A single corrupt president could neuter any conviction they disagreed with. Imagine a democratic president in favour of legalisation of marijuana pardoning every single person convicted for possession. The entire system would become a farce. Now you may agree with their specific goal, but once we establish that in effect voiding laws you dislike is something presidents do, what is keeping the next president from pardoning everyone who beats up members of the opposition? — Echarmion

Thats a good point, though thats less about Trump and more about the presidential pardon. I agree that oversight is needed. Thats the absolute power we mentioned...not a good thing for any system really.