People who force their will on others are calling it being noble (humans, life)

[Phil75230]

I presume the OP is in response to the OP of this thread, which I started.

As I said on that thread, and even in the OP (or at least implied at the bottom if it), there are a few, narrow circumstances when it is proper to commit suicide - mostly related to severe physical or mental illness when there is no realistic chance that the suffering will cease. Put another way, I believe suicide is justified IF a person's condition (physical or mental) or situation is so unendurable and untreatable that any benefits or suffering relief others may gain from his or her continued existence are more than offset by the amount of agony or suffering he or she must endure in order to deliver those benefits or prevent that suffering.

However, a truly just assessment also includes the acts effects on others. Hence what I just said also applies to others: Suicide is not justified IF a person's condition or situation is reasonably endurable and treatable, to the point that

*any cessation of suffering for that person is not offset by
- the anguish inflicted upon others by their suicide
- the denial of future suffering reduction efforts for others that would have happened had that person remained alive.

I admit there is always going to be a certain subjectivity to this judgment, endurability also depends on the person's own traits. Nevertheless 95%+ of the world's people are sufficiently similar to each other so that would react in similar ways and intensity toward the exact same set of circumstances. Were this not true, then the entire system of social sciences would be impossible even in theory. Therefore, the subjectivity does not change the fact that it is quite possible to make personal plausible predictions of how a person and especially a group of people will react to a certain type of act. This includes how they would react to the suicide of a close one.

The most the "pro-choice" crowd proves is that suicidal desires should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Even within this assumption, we must fight the temptation to focus solely, or even mostly, on the individual without reference to how his or her choice may negatively affect others to a profound degree. This seems especially true in this "Me" half-decade cultural ethos (as Kurt Anderson put it); in which the rights of the self and rights of others seem greatly out of balanced toward the former. Victor Frankl states it perfectly: the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast needs a counterbalancing Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast. In fact, the Utah state government actually endorsed such a proposal and it is taking concrete form 'Statue of Responsibility' taking shape at UVU | KSL.com. If nobody cared about how our wishes, if acted out, can negatively impact upon others, our society would fall apart.

[dizzybint]

Religions are the worst of all the forced will on a population that has ever been invented, to me they are never based on goodness but greed and power..

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by allenk893

I know it's hard for you to believe but some people actually love you so much and genuinely enjoy your company that they don't want you to die. I know, crazy right?

There's a clear difference between wanting and forcing - a difference of which I'm guessing you were very well aware when you decided to try and pretend that we're talking about well-wishes here, not about forcing people to adhere to what one might want. But the latter is exactly what the OP was talking about.

You're free to want. And you're free to pretend that your desire to force people to do what you want is love. But you're not actually free to force people to do what you want them to do just because you cannot stand anyone having different desires for themselves than do you.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by justus978

trust me...we never, ever, ever...do what we do for your worship

semper fi

But you don't mind basking in the glory of our worship, do you? Next time you are asked to throw out the first ball at a ball game in your dress uniform and ribbons, politely decline, then, and say there is no nobility in what you did, fording your will on people..

[Blueneondot]

Originally Posted by jtur88

But you don't mind basking in the glory of our worship, do you? Next time you are asked to throw out the first ball at a ball game in your dress uniform and ribbons, politely decline, then, and say there is no nobility in what you did, fording your will on people..

So you've completely dismissed all the positive aspects of military service and minimized the function of a soldier to one negative element that is the more the culpability of the administrators that govern the army than the individual soldiers within it and considering most soldiers are never placed in combat, your average soldier has never been in the position of "forcing his will on people".

A soldier throwing out the first ball at a ball game isn't there because he was personally strongarming his way through the villages of oilstan but because he selflessly availed himself to an altruistic cause.

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

There's a clear difference between wanting and forcing - a difference of which I'm guessing you were very well aware when you decided to try and pretend that we're talking about well-wishes here, not about forcing people to adhere to what one might want. But the latter is exactly what the OP was talking about.

You're free to want. And you're free to pretend that your desire to force people to do what you want is love. But you're not actually free to force people to do what you want them to do just because you cannot stand anyone having different desires for themselves than do you.

You said what I was about to say so much better.

I once heard a story from Hurricane Katrina, about a elderly dude who was trapped in his home during the flooding and had held on to his wheelchair bound wife for hours before letting go due to just running out of strength and having to watch her drown. He survived by hanging onto a tree branch for 12 hours. At a shelter he said to Al Sharpton I don't know why God didn't just let me die. He had lost everything and had to live with the guilt of having a part in his wife's death. What the hell does the anti-choice brigade say to him? He should be happy to be alive to experience life as a homeless person since he was far too old to start over? He should be happy to be able to relive the memories of his final moments with his wife?

The anti-choice folks don't realize that sometimes staying alive creates more pain than a death will.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Blueneondot

So you've completely dismissed all the positive aspects of military service and minimized the function of a soldier to one negative element that is the more the culpability of the administrators that govern the army than the individual soldiers within it and considering most soldiers are never placed in combat, your average soldier has never been in the position of "forcing his will on people".

A soldier throwing out the first ball at a ball game isn't there because he was personally strongarming his way through the villages of oilstan but because he selflessly availed himself to an altruistic cause.

In the case of Oilstan, what exactly was the altruistic cause?. He had a job to do, and he could have quit and refused to do it (for an altruistic cause), and to do so would have required more bravery than to blindly obey orders.

I do not know of any "positive aspects" of using our own superior and invincible weapons of mass destruction on people of another continent who represented absolutely no credible threat to America or our way of life.

Any soldier who was "never placed in combat" has no right to be praised for his bravery, and didn't "selflessly" do anything of service to the republic.

Let me make it clear that I have no grudge against veterans, and I will stand up for their rights to the benefits that they were promised when they enlisted. Not every man can be brave enough to just say no to the lies and the threats, just as not every solder can be brave enough to be considered a hero for his service. I accept a soldier and veteran for his worth -- no more, no less, and there are always worthy and unworthy among us. Military service does not shift the balance of that.

[justus978]

Originally Posted by jtur88

But you don't mind basking in the glory of our worship, do you? Next time you are asked to throw out the first ball at a ball game in your dress uniform and ribbons, politely decline, then, and say there is no nobility in what you did, fording your will on people..

i would consider it an honor to be asked to throw out the first pitch, unfortunately i lost my right arm in viet nam and i probably would decline as i can't quite toss the ball as good with my left arm as i do with my right...plus, i couldn't fit into my dress blues even if i tried

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by justus978

i would consider it an honor to be asked to throw out the first pitch, unfortunately i lost my right arm in viet nam and i probably would decline as i can't quite toss the ball as good with my left arm as i do with my right...plus, i couldn't fit into my dress blues even if i tried

Not to be confrontational, but here is a question. Have you ever reflected on how your life today would be different, if you had said no, and refused to obey orders? If you had served your country in a way that , to some tiny extent, contributed to ending the war, instead of perpetuating it? You seem to be a reasonable and thoughtful man, I'd be curious to know how you feel about this.

[Jeo123]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Not to be confrontational, but here is a question. Have you ever reflected on how your life today would be different, if you had said no, and refused to obey orders? If you had served your country in a way that , to some tiny extent, contributed to ending the war, instead of perpetuating it? You seem to be a reasonable and thoughtful man, I'd be curious to know how you feel about this.

jtur, optimism can paint the world a nicer place under a "what if scenario", but it's not always the reality. Yes, he probably wouldn't have lost his arm, but at the same time, someone else may have died instead. An enemy soldier may have died because he was there, but that loss may have contributed to the war ending. To attempt to rewind history is futile, and there are far too many unknown variables for you to attempt to shame someone into regret like that.