Suicide

both of them, at the same time

Attached: 2017-12-13_19-29-56 - SEPPUKU - SUICIDE WITH HONOUR.jpg (477x513, 72K)

If you're posting on here, probably coward.

Maybe you have to be very mentally deranged to do it? Or maybe be very fanatical like for example members of religious sects or people with fanatic ideologies like the Nazis or the Japanese in WW2. Like those japanese women that jumped from the cliffs with their children because after all their life hearing propaganda they thought that the americans were demons. Or was it for honor like the soldiers?

youtu.be/RtQ4oLCiMDo?t=19

Bravery for me is correlated to how long you suffer and how much you suffer. If something takes you painful hours to die then it's brave, if something takes hours but is painless, or is painful but almost instant its not brave.

In that case, shooting yourself in the heart is probably gonna kill you faster than seppuku and I don't think the pain would be that different, so it's braver to seppuku

Depends on your interpretation of it.
Could be seen as cowardly for chickening out of life, and brave for having the will to follow through with it and not stop out of fear halfway through.

I don't think bravery is necessarily a positive trait either though. I don't think people should be berated for committing suicide, they know how they feel about life and their future prospects, hence suffer the consequences themselves.

I don't think the Seppuku of the Samurais could be considered the same as the suicides of normal people today. That was a ritual learned since they were kids. It was their culture and tradition. That is a fanatical suicide because of ideology or religion.

Seppuku is incredibly painful, the equivalent with a gun would be to place high powered gun at the side of your stomach, and pulling the trigger. You'll die if nobody intercepts you and takes you to the hospital. Usually I'd reccomend the Valhalla suicide method, buy some weaponry and join up with a mercenary group, fight till you die, that's a warriors suicide.

>I don't think people should be berated for committing suicide, they know how they feel about life and their future prospects, hence suffer the consequences themselves.
Yeah but it is always said that they leave the suffering to their family forever. That's why they are mostly berated I think.

Everyone suffers, their are entire philosophies built around this fact. A core part of the entire Buddhist religion is that existence entails great suffering and ultimantly the aim is to break from the karmic cycle. Armed with this information that ever human being who lives or ever has experiences pain and misery, has felt empty hopeless, and incapable of joy at times it becomes obvious that suicide is a cowardly act. Everyone hurts but the vast majority continue to struggle and fight and live every day despite it while suicides give up and give in.

>Usually I'd reccomend the Valhalla suicide method, buy some weaponry and join up with a mercenary group, fight till you die, that's a warriors suicide.
Valhalla suicide > Sepukku

I agree.

Samurais were fanatical retards and Vikings were real men that preferred to die fighting. All hail Odin!

Their family choose to care about it, they brought them into the world in the first place without their permission. If they're suffering and can't handle it then to force them to stay in a world that puts them down is much more "selfish" than to take your own life.
Your only responsibility innately is to yourself, any other responsibility you have is a result of personal choice and lifestyle.

Suicide is badass dude

Attached: Screenshot_20190111-165520_Google.jpg (1439x700, 542K)

Suicide is gay lol

pic is not directly related. my point: taking your own life, facing the ULTIMATE unknown, is the ultimate bravery. nothing strikes more fear into a living beings heart as death. its the definition of it. yet, it also is the ultimate cowardice, ending life altogether instead of facing it is the ultimate surrender.
so, both, at the same time

>they brought them into the world in the first place without their permission.
That argument is stupid because no body has ever been able to chose to come to the world.

>Your only responsibility innately is to yourself, any other responsibility you have is a result of personal choice and lifestyle.
Wrong. You have responsibilities since you come to this world like take care of your family. Even if you hate your parents they will be forever your parents, even when they will be dead.

>That argument is stupid because no body has ever been able to chose to come to the world.
I never said everyone had a problem with being brought into the world involuntarily, just that those who do shouldn't be criticised for taking offense to it.
>Wrong. You have responsibilities since you come to this world like take care of your family. Even if you hate your parents they will be forever your parents, even when they will be dead.
No. A person has no intrinsic moral obligations, the most important person in your life at any given moment should be yourself. Naturally the only reason for a beings birth is to procreate themselves. From a moral standpoint procreation is completely neutral with no real conceivable altruistic result. However, for a person to be kept alive when they hate their existence and everything about it just so that you can find some use for them later, ignoring their own feelings, is also very irresponsible and selfish.

Suicide is literally just natural selection in modern society. When you kill yourself, you show you have the inability to confront and overcome your material problems, and also give the collective the easiest way of getting rid of "problematic" you.

There are plenty of people who don't fear death, simply because they anticipate said ending. I've talked to plenty of people about whether or not they fear death and most of them just say no, they just fear the pain.

>I never said everyone had a problem with being brought into the world involuntarily, just that those who do shouldn't be criticised for taking offense to it.
You were implying that the family brought the person that committed suicide to the world so they are somewhat responsible or must be take the suffering. Right?

>No. A person has no intrinsic moral obligations,
Yes you have because you are born into a society. You aren't born in the middle of the jungle and live there alone like Mowgli. Shit even Mowgli had moral obligations to the animals that fed and protected him.

> the most important person in your life at any given moment should be yourself.
I agree on that though. But you always have moral obligations. Since you are born. Even if your parents abandon you and you are raised by the state, then you have a moral obligation to the state.

>You were implying that the family brought the person that committed suicide to the world so they are somewhat responsible or must be take the suffering. Right?
If the family tries to force them to stay alive when they don't want to just because there's the possibility that they will profit from them in the future somehow, then it's not exactly admirable.
>Yes you have because you are born into a society. You aren't born in the middle of the jungle and live there alone like Mowgli. Shit even Mowgli had moral obligations to the animals that fed and protected him.
I don't see people as owing a debt to society when they have no option of an alternative from their birth. Only what you willingly and knowingly take from society, as well as the responsibilities you give yourself warrant obligations. Once you're dead society stops giving/taking, as do you. Hence suicide remains a neutral action.
>I agree on that though. But you always have moral obligations. Since you are born. Even if your parents abandon you and you are raised by the state, then you have a moral obligation to the state.
Only while you're alive. The relationship between a person and the state they're in should be mutual for the most part. If a relative or the state itself decides to go the extra mile that's on them. The states obligation to a person who commits suicide, as well as the persons obligation to the state, ends there, or at least it should.

>to an hero one must defeat the strongest instinct of any living being, survival instinct.
>stronger than the compulsion to breed
Pretty fucking hard to do.
I say it's brave.
If an hero was easy, more people would do it.
READ NIGGA, READ!
That's just being masochistic.
For me being brave doesn't mean just to suffer, but to be willing to engage in a dangerous behavior to accomplish a task, knowing of the consequences, otherwise it would be just being stupid, as only stupid people aren't aware of dangers.
>implying the majority is truly enjoying life except the wealthiest and most fit.
Neither truly made it on their own. You can say it's natural selection, but it's stupid to believe it is a good thing, shall i remind you how humanity bent nature over and raped it mercilessly with the same gift it allegedly gave us?
Nature isn't objectively good nor evil, subjectively it's the latter, as far as humanity is concerned anyway.
Can you deny that there are way too many things that make you fail that are beyond your control?
One isn't superior to another merely to virtue, but by circumstance.
But suicide is much more than that.
It is proven by the fact that so many successful people still kill themselves, where's your natural selection now.
It's not always about material problems.
The collective, as you say, doesn't fucking want to get rid of you. You are but a beast to be squeezed for resources.
Why do you think there's so many shills for mental health and antihero programs.
Each of us is has more worth being alive than dead, even if you are neet and don't pay taxes, someone is feeding you and being squeezed extra hard.
Govt ain't losing on its shekels.

>If the family tries to force them to stay alive when they don't want to just because there's the possibility that they will profit from them in the future somehow, then it's not exactly admirable.
Can you give me an example of that?

>I don't see people as owing a debt to society when they have no option of an alternative from their birth.
As I said before no one can chose to come to this world and can't either chose the type of society. But tell me an alternative where you are born and you don't own nothing to no one. Do you realize that you can feed and protect your self when you are born?

>Only while you're alive.
That is pretty obvious. But even when you are dead the state or the church has moral obligations with you like protecting your tomb. That your body can't be taken out of his place. For example.

No one enjoys life unless they're attractive and/or wealthy. Everyone wants to kill themselves and has thoughts of suicide, it is only a matter of frequency and severity. The only reason most people don't kill themselves is cowardice/fear or too much distractions to actually do it.

boyo trust me if they look death in the face its a whole other story. easy to talk about swimming when your not in the water

>No one enjoys life unless they're attractive and/or wealthy.
Completely wrong. The majority of people are not attractive or rich and they still enjoy life thorough their jobs and family.

>Everyone wants to kill themselves and has thoughts of suicide, it is only a matter of frequency and severity.
Wrong. That is your mind that makes you think that everyone is secretly mentally ill and wants to kill themselves too. That is a coping mechanism of your mind to make you think that you are normal and in fact everybody is like mentally ill like you. I know that because since I have become a mentally deranged person I'm always thinking that other people are also mentally ill.

>>to an hero one must defeat the strongest instinct of any living being, survival instinct
>assuming mental health
damaged brain can easily override an instinct, even reflexes are not off-limits

Deaths by suicide among men by age in Spain.

Between 45 and 54 is when more men commit suicide.

Attached: 3423423.png (1195x568, 25K)

>Can you give me an example of that?
Of what? Assuming it was the "profit in the future" part of my comment, then when you said people have an obligation to take care of their family, then that's essentially what I was implying. That they should be kept alive so they could benefit their family when they get older.
>As I said before no one can chose to come to this world and can't either chose the type of society. But tell me an alternative where you are born and you don't own nothing to no one. Do you realize that you can feed and protect your self when you are born?
I can't see the offspring owing anything as far as procreation goes, as they don't have the capability to be a benefactor or provider themselves for a long time. From a natural perspective animals tend to survey and take care of their offspring when possible but I can't see that as a mutual obligation (especially for humans) because someone who is just born or hasn't matured to be socially and physically responsible can't owe a debt.
>That is pretty obvious. But even when you are dead the state or the church has moral obligations with you like protecting your tomb. That your body can't be taken out of his place. For example.
I don't really think that should be the responsibility of the state unless the person who committed suicide either made post-mortem arrangements himself or through family. Things like taking the body should be opt-in rather than opt-out and protecting a tomb isn't really something the state bothers with, since graves are desecrated all the time and the blame for that lies solely on the person who committed the crime. Organised burial is an example of the state going out of it's way and you can't really pay back the "debt" you'd owe for that when you're dead.

Dude it's simple. Make it simple.

1) You said that some families force the people that want to commit suicide because they would benefit from them. How? Receiving the money from the government because their children are mentally ill?
2) You have moral obligations either you want to recognize it or not because you are born into a society and a family. We are not independent beings that can survive without the help of others. Not even when you are an adult.
3) If you are christian and you are buried in a tomb. The church has the obligation to protect your tomb. Or don't allow that someone can move your body to other place if your family doesn't agree.

>1) You said that some families force the people that want to commit suicide because they would benefit from them. How? Receiving the money from the government because their children are mentally ill?
Yes, in the future. In your case a young suicidal person with a mental illness is probably living with their parents so obviously isn't going to immediately provide them with anything. "Taking care of the family" is typically applied to helping them when they're elderly.
>2) You have moral obligations either you want to recognize it or not because you are born into a society and a family. We are not independent beings that can survive without the help of others. Not even when you are an adult.
You have no moral obligations you don't make for yourself. As far as an adult in society goes you're also providing for it as it does for you. If you have nothing to offer society then it will abandon you, as is fairly common here.
>3) If you are christian and you are buried in a tomb. The church has the obligation to protect your tomb. Or don't allow that someone can move your body to other place if your family doesn't agree.
That's again post-mortem and out of your control, a burden society or the church has placed on itself and not something you can change. You don't owe a moral debt to people who force something on you.

Yes, you have moral obligations either you want to recognize them or not. So, you don't have moral obligation to take care of your parents when they are old? For example.

And you are christian because you chose to be a christian. And you were buried as a christian because you chose to be buried as a christian.

Interesting, I thought that Japan was the country with most suicides and is pretty down in the list.

Attached: 234324.png (924x375, 26K)

Suicide is saying that dealing with whatever's going on in your life is too scary that you consider death a preferable alternative.
So yeah, cowardly.

Naturally there's a responsibility for the parent to raise the child but providing for the elderly is a human custom. An act of altruism sure, but not something that doesn't have alternatives (nursing homes) and not a reason to keep someone who is suicidal alive. If they were suicidal they're in no position to care for others in the first place.
>And you are christian because you chose to be a christian. And you were buried as a christian because you chose to be buried as a christian.
Believing in Christianity has basic, simple requirements and isn't equivalent to the modern customs of the church. Many suicidal people don't make arrangements for how they're treated on death and those who do, it falls back into the mutual arrangements point. It's applied to all Christians who die regardless of how suicidal they are, no one can give back after it and they aren't taking money out of your account after death either.

Easily? Are you bullshitting me?
Let's assume that everyone in their life has thought of suicide, even mentally healthy people.
How many of those make plans? Mostly the presumed unhealthy ones, we can say that everyone who makes plans is not mentally healthy anymore, right? They are thinking about it, seriously. Not a joke.
Even among the ones that are perceived as mentally unstable (we can argue what is considered m.u.) not all of them end up an heroing.
As a matter of fact even those who go through with it, attempt, do not commit, and and overwhelmingly majority will stop at the first.
Are they or aren't they m.u.? Yes, or not.
A damaged brain, as you say, does not override an instinct "easily" at all.
Further proof is that, when thinking about and seriously making plans about suicide, we tend to choose either the fastest, or the least painful.
Ironic how lethality isn't the priority.
You have no clue how fucking cucked we are by our own brains.
This is why i find our species so fascinating, it's like two entities live in us, we gave them names such as consciousness or soul, yet we can't prove that they exist outside of the flesh prison we call body.
Why. We cannot know.
We consciously want to die, yet our animal instincts heavily influence our consciousness, forcing us to have unusual (for us) preferences, whenever we go against our instincts.
Try not to eat for a week, if you have certain disgust for a specific food, your animal side will make sure that you gonna eat that shit because you hungry as fuck. Normally you wouldn't yet you get forcibly cucked.
This is why only an ai can make a truly unbiased decision.

Do you know that nursing homes cost money and no everybody can pay, right?

>and they aren't taking money out of your account after death either.
Who do you thinks that pays your coffin and tomb? You pay for it even after you are dead. And if you don't have money then your children.

Another example that your obligations with the society don't end after you are dead is that if you have debts, your children will have to pay them. You obligations don't end once you are dead. Yes you can't argue that they are now your children's obligations but in reality they were your obligations.

>Moved in with oneitis since she needs roommate

>gets boyfriend 2 weeks later

Hooooooo boy what have I done.

Attached: 02D508A7-5BA5-4993-BC05-1B66C3552509.jpg (500x504, 71K)

>Do you know that nursing homes cost money and no everybody can pay, right?
Sure, but this potentially saves you the time, effort and cost of otherwise providing for them living on their own as well.
>Who do you thinks that pays your coffin and tomb? You pay for it even after you are dead. And if you don't have money then your children.
You do all that in advance. If you're a complete recluse and end up dead and found on a couch 3 months later then there's no hurry provide burial and a tomb. As for the thing about children, that's something I'm going off the suicidal person not having, since having children is a conscious decision they made that makes them have a natural obligation to raise until adulthood. However if you commit suicide by the time they could pay for it then they're likely independent in the first place.

Any longstanding debts you owe after death, if you haven't already paid them then society finds a way to make you through your possessions regardless, assuming you had any in the first place.

an hero'ing is saying "im too much of a retard/pussy to put in the thought and effort required to build something of my life but i have enough raw determination to do something entirely retarded should i believe it to be true"

its not real bravery, its stupidity under the guise of something greater positioned as such by fetishistic, depressive faggots

>Let's assume that everyone in their life has thought of suicide, even mentally healthy people.
Ok. Let's.
>How many of those make plans?
>Mostly the presumed unhealthy ones, we can say that everyone who makes plans is not mentally healthy anymore, right?
Let's assume that too.
>Even among the ones that are perceived as mentally unstable (we can argue what is considered m.u.) not all of them end up an heroing.
Right.
>As a matter of fact even those who go through with it, attempt, do not commit, and and overwhelmingly majority will stop at the first.
Let's assume that too. I think numbers would confirm this.
>Are they or aren't they m.u.?
Of course.
>A damaged brain, as you say, does not override an instinct "easily" at all.
It depends on the damage. You can "forget" breathing just because your brain tells you to, even though it's not the brain that controls it. Your brain can tell you "no erection" even though it's not the one that controls it.
It can easily override any instinct or reflex. That it can easily do it doesn't mean it does it often.
Of the people attempting suicide, those that die are the unlucky ones and those who threw their instincts away - a damaged brain.
>Further proof is that, when thinking about and seriously making plans about suicide, we tend to choose either the fastest, or the least painful. Ironic how lethality isn't the priority.
Proof can't be assumed. Major ways to anhero that i'm aware of are hanging, guns, pills, electricity, falls and traffic (trains seem popular). The lethality of these is pretty high - very slim chances of you getting out of rope, surviving a gunshot to the head, fall from high building or collision with train.
I'm not sure of lethality of electric incidents, but i'd think it's pretty high too. As for pills, that's the only one where the death isn't fast. Why do people choose them? Who knows.

So you think that a person doesn't have any moral obligation if he hasn't chose it?

Takes more balls than you have.