Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I minored in Psychology in college, and have had a lifelong interest and continuing my studies in psychology.
The difference between your point of view and mine is that I'm pragmatic about the subject. I'm not into rescuing lost souls. Nor am I into rescuing serious drug users such as heroin addicts. I think the world has an overpopulation and I'm all in favor of those who want to reduce the population letting themselves end their existence by their own choice.
It's sad that people do that, but I have absolutely no problem at all with letting them have their choice.
I'll even take it a step further. I suggest we legalize self-euthanasia. Put a 24 hour waiting period after a person declares they want to suicide, and in that period have them discuss it with mental health professionals, religious counseling, whatever the person wants. If at the end of 24 hours they still haven't changed their mind then give them a sedative to put them to sleep and a stiff IV jolt of saline to stop their heart. End result: one less unhappy person who got what they wanted, and one less traveler on our overloaded planet Earth.
1. This is the internet. Anybody can claim anything. Rhodes scholar, IQ of 160, PhD in astrophysics. It means nothing if not verifiable.
2. "Minoring" (or majoring for that matter) in a subject in college is also meaningless even if true. There are countless idiots with all kinds of degrees and professional standing too.
3. Anyone posting here can only be judged by the intelligence (or not) of what they contribute and whether they provide factual information to support.
4. The "difference between" our views with regard to "rescuing lost souls" and "pragmatism" cant be known since you are the only one offer personal views on those issues so far.
5. The world is definitely overpopulated. However suicides dont measurably impact population numbers so it is an irrelevancy. You can add drug overdoses to that if you wish and still not reach any significant numbers against 7+ billion people on the planet.
6. You either didn't read the quotes provided about who commits suicide after what periods of deliberation or you defy any confidence that you have any understanding of psychology at all in spite of your claim.
You have posted you are a single male of late middle age or older with good health habits and wishful of finding love. One might think with so many women (and men) lonesome in their advancing ages and also wishing for relationships, someone with good health habits and and understanding of psychology would have a leg up on the quest. After all a grasp of psychology would be a great tool in relationship strategies.
It would also appear certain you have never experienced one of your children suffer a deep hurt and decide impulsively to kill themselves .. and try, successfully or not. The youngest to jump from the Golden Gate bridge was five. Others have been in their teens, stiil in high school.
Work officially began Thursday on a net under the Golden Gate Bridge intended to prevent and deter the dozens of suicides that take place at the iconic landmark each year. More than 1,500 people are thought to have died there over the bridge’s 80-year lifespan. The stainless steel net will be built over a period of four years, at a cost of just over $200 million drawn from a mix of federal, state and local sources.
Throwing a hissy fit over a few cents to a dollar in tax money is exactly why the decision makers aren't listening to your side. There are plenty of ways a person can take their own life without jumping off a bridge. They could land in a boat or ship and injure or kill someone. The safety of other people who don't want to die is quite likely one of the deciding factors. The chance is small but it's there so no. Besides, what kind of society just lets people fling themselves off of bridges?
In addition to the remote chance you describe, every jumper stops traffic. Stopped traffic causes accidents, delays emergency vehicles responding to other situations, cuases tramu for innocent bystanders (which includes children), and feeds the sad mystique.
3 people a month average. About 2000 total so far. 4' high railing between life and impulse. 94% of over 500+ hundreds stopped overcome their depression impulse and never try again.
It's sad that people do that, but I have absolutely no problem at all with letting them have their choice.
I'll even take it a step further. I suggest we legalize self-euthanasia. Put a 24 hour waiting period after a person declares they want to suicide, and in that period have them discuss it with mental health professionals, religious counseling, whatever the person wants. If at the end of 24 hours they still haven't changed their mind then give them a sedative to put them to sleep and a stiff IV jolt of saline to stop their heart. End result: one less unhappy person who got what they wanted, and one less traveler on our overloaded planet Earth.
Agreed.
A while back the spend-and-tax governor signed a bill that allows some medical patients to die at their own hands. In this spirit we should declare a section of the bridge a Compassionate-End-Of-Sufferings fulfillment area where suicidal folks can do their business without being judged or shamed.
A while back the spend-and-tax governor signed a bill that allows some medical patients to die at the own hands. In this spirit we should declare a section of the bridge a Compassionate-End-Of-Sufferings fulfillment area where suicidal folks can do their business without being judged or shamed.
And another poster who apparently doesnt bother to read references that cite studies clearly showing that the vast majority of people who jump off bridges do so on impulsive feelings - often formed in less than an hour before hand, sometimes as short as 5 minutes - and who, if stopped from or survived their jump, regret their impulse and never attempt suicide again.
Why bother installing a barrier to temporary emotional impulse when instead we can enjoy the world being 1 person less crowded out of 7+ billion, despite the danger and trauma their public suicide causes to other traffic and passersby?
Heck, while we're reducing population let's take down all speed limits and legalize drinking while driving.
Yes, the California forum really needs a moderator to step in and take control of the anti-California BS.
Translation: Please lock down any speech that I don't find palatable since I am afraid to debate ideas, even in the isolated, faceless, medium of the internet.
There are plenty of ways a person can take their own life without jumping off a bridge. They could land in a boat or ship and injure or kill someone. The safety of other people who don't want to die is quite likely one of the deciding factors. The chance is small but it's there so no. Besides, what kind of society just lets people fling themselves off of bridges?
Extremely unlikely. Land on a freaking boat and take someone out? Were you actually serious? Is there even a recorded instance in the history of its existence of this happening on the Golden Gate Bridge?
I love when people use the most far fetched, edge cases to justify $200,000,000 in ridiculous spending. It's like people who say "We need publicly funded abortions because what if a woman gets a rape baby and can't afford to get it terminated?" ignoring the fact that out of all abortions reported in the U.S for 2015 less than 1% of 1% (yes that little) were "rape baby abortions". So now we have to use public funds for PP so they can continue executing babies. This is broken logic 101.
I also like the weasel language. "What kind of society just lets people fling themselves off of bridges?" As if it's society fault that these people are flinging themselves off a 200+ foot high bridge. Some people have no concept of individual responsibility as if everything is someone else's fault that must be fixed by the gracious and super efficient government with a $200,000,000 freaking fishing net. Geez, this isn't even funny anymore. No wonder California is going into debt and taxing itself into oblivion. We let the unicorn care bears run the asylum.
Breaking my rule not to engage with you so don't expect anymore replies from me but if you think jumping off a bridge has zero chance of landing on anything that may be floating underneath, I don't know what else to tell you. Chances are small but not impossible.
"when a man jumping from a bridge into the Colorado River instead landed on a passenger in a boat."
So because you cited an article where someone jumped off some random 30 foot tall bridge on the COLORADO RIVER (does that flow under the Golden Gate Bridge now?), you think $200,000,000 in taxpayer money is justified for a glorified fishing net on the Golden Gate Bridge?
Quote:
Breaking my rule not to engage with you so don't expect anymore replies from me but if you think jumping off a bridge has zero chance of landing on anything that may be floating underneath, I don't know what else to tell you. Chances are small but not impossible
What are the chances? Out of all the suicides ever committed on the Golden Gate Bridge, from a 220 foot drop, over a 8,981 foot span (the bridge in your article is barely 30 feet tall), how many times has a suicide jumper hit a boat and injured/killed someone? In fact, do you even realize how hard it would be to hit a moving target from a 220 foot drop accurately? You say the chances are small, but not impossible. Do you know how small they are? I just did a calculation using the nearly 9,000 foot span, assuming the person jumping is around 2 feet wide, and dropping from 220 feet. It's mathematically negligible.
So negligible in fact that I can find exactly ZERO instances in the bridge's entire 80 year history. Yet, YOU think spending $200,000,000 to solve a non-existent problem is somehow justified.
Yeah, you better not break your rule not to "engage", this whole facts and debate thing isn't really your thing obviously.
"when a man jumping from a bridge into the Colorado River instead landed on a passenger in a boat."
So because you cited an article where someone jumped off some random 30 foot tall bridge on the COLORADO RIVER (does that flow under the Golden Gate Bridge now?), you think $200,000,000 in taxpayer money is justified for a glorified fishing net on the Golden Gate Bridge?
What are the chances? Out of all the suicides ever committed on the Golden Gate Bridge, from a 220 foot drop, over a 8,981 foot span (the bridge in your article is barely 30 feet tall), how many times has a suicide jumper hit a boat and injured/killed someone? In fact, do you even realize how hard it would be to hit a moving target from a 220 foot drop accurately? You say the chances are small, but not impossible. Do you know how small they are? I just did a calculation using the nearly 9,000 foot span, assuming the person jumping is around 2 feet wide, and dropping from 220 feet. It's mathematically negligible.
So negligible in fact that I can find exactly ZERO instances in the bridge's entire 80 year history. Yet, YOU think spending $200,000,000 to solve a non-existent problem is somehow justified.
Yeah, you better not break your rule not to "engage", this whole facts and debate thing isn't really your thing obviously.
As usual you attack what isnt being argued. A boat passing under the GG Bridge wouldnt be a "target" a jumper would try to time to hit. A jumper wouldnt ever try to land on a boat. It would be happenstance. Which sorts of things are not unheard of. Furthermore the example provided is as good as any other in that bridge height makes no difference in random chance. Your math sucks. Odds for pure accident dont change with height. They change with density and frequency of maritime traffic. That said there is a tremendous amount of vessel traffic passing under the GG Bridge daily to the Bay ports.
That all said Gentoo didnt say it was likely he said it was possible. Not did he say it initself justified $200 million. He threw out an example of public safety. Truth is there are a variety of public safety concerns that come with traffic distractions and stoppages for jumpers. Including restrictions of emergency vehicles transiting for other problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Land on a freaking boat and take someone out? Were you actually serious? Is there even a recorded instance in the history of its existence of this happening on the Golden Gate Bridge? 
