The case of Amanda Todd

[Alrik Fassbauer]

To nutshell it, he put up "I don't have much sympathy for a suicide because that's just weakness", and the response was "*GASP* you're a monster and clearly ignorant because every life is a treasure".

To me, as being one who had been at the border to suicide fuelled by nothing but bitter pain, being told I would have been "weak" if I had chosen to end all of this pain, this is just … unbelievable. To me this is like telling a blind person that he is weak if he chooses NOT to cross a highway with lots and lots and lots of fast racing cars running though it (because doing so he or she would risk the own life).

 

[DArtagnan]

That's why I included the quotes. Would you like to do some revisionist history? Or did you not mean "ignorance" when you typed "ignorance"?

What has ignorance got to do with him being a monster? We're all ignorant - so then we're all monsters? I don't think so. We're just ignorant in different ways, which is inevitable given our limited capacity.

This only holds water if your holy grail, "the human condition" (which, it bears mentioning is, by your own admission is rather broad and grey around the edges) is somehow objectively "good". Since you introduced the angle and seem to be hanging your entire response on it, perhaps you're on the hook to demonstrate that it (whatever the hell it actually is) is objectively worth pursuing.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I have no opinion that's even remotely positive about the human condition. It's just there.

You can understand it at various levels - and in my opinion, Firestorm has a very low level of understanding of it - if he really thinks that "freedoms" is the only factor when people commit suicide.

Now, whether a low level of understanding is good or bad - I have no idea. That's impossible to establish in any way approaching the objective.

I'm basically just stating that I think he's ignorant about this, and it's up to him to do with my opinion as he pleases. I have no opinion about his person that's "good" or "bad" as a result. That's your simplistic inference.

 

[dteowner]

Depends, Alrik. "Pain" is a relative term, and where do we set the threshold for the amount of "pain" that justifies such an action. I can't afford a new computer right now. That's pain. Enough? You had an extremely difficult childhood. That's pain. Enough? Girls in Pakistan get shot in the head for wanting to go to school. That's pain. Enough? People in Africa are starving when the various warlords aren't attempting a little ethnic cleansing. That's pain. Enough?

I wouldn't presume to objectivelyjudge that something doesn't meet that threshold, but the flip side of that coin is that it's equally presumptuous to objectively judge that something does meet it.

 

[dteowner]

What has ignorance got to do with him being a monster? We're all ignorant - so then we're all monsters? I don't think so. We're just ignorant in different ways, which is inevitable given our limited capacity.

"As for sounding cold, I guess you do." You might consider another way to backtrack, because your words are right there in the quotes. You didn't say "monster" letter-for-letter, but "cold" and "ignorant" don't sound like someone you want to spend quality time with, either. If you want to tap dance that hole by claiming it's a faulty inference, then you go right ahead, I suppose.

I'm still curious about just what you think the human condition is, since you've clearly and repeatedly established that knowledge of it is somehow objectively valuable.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

My real problem with it is that we look at "pain" from the outside.

But I look at it from the inside, too.

Looking at something from the outside makes it easy to remain … "backed away" or how I could call it ? Looking at something from the outside is like a wtcher looking at a chemical reaction taking place in a glass vessel.

Looking at something from the outside has the "positive" of us not bing drawn into it. How can a mass murderer perform his mass murderings ? Like Breivik from Norway, for example ?

Because he looked at the people from the outside.

He shut off his "mirror neurons". He decided not to get involved, he perhaps might have even "objectivised" or how i call it, persons. Make persons, living, breathing persons with emotions etc. into objects.

Objects can be handled. Objects can be killed without getting involved. Objects have no emotional ttachment to no-body.

Looking at things from the outside - is like talking about an earthquake with a hill of earth getting loose and slippering and burying a house or a whole village.

Looking at that from the outside doesn't let us feel with the victims.

Looking at it from the insie would be you, with nothing but earth all around you, trying to cry, trying to breath, but the air runs out, no-one can hear you, and you are lying buried alive by the earth of a hill gone loose after an earthquake. And then, you might think, "this is he end. I will die here, ll of this earth remaining hrd and unmoving all around me, nobody will find me here for ever, I will got lost, erased from family's history, because they could never ever find my bones again." And then despair sweeps over you, perhaps, and ou cry because of all of the things you still wanted to do in your life, of the people missing from you, your family, the sun, the wind, the tasty dfood … And all you've got is earth in your mouth.

THIS is like looking at it from the inside.

We can discuss about the pain of an arm that's cut off - but merely discussing something is fairly NOT the same as LIVING it !

And same goes with depressions.

 

[DArtagnan]

"As for sounding cold, I guess you do." You might consider another way to backtrack, because your words are right there in the quotes. You didn't say "monster" letter-for-letter, but "cold" and "ignorant" don't sound like someone you want to spend quality time with, either. If you want to tap dance that hole by claiming it's a faulty inference, then you go right ahead, I suppose.

He suggested he probably sounded cold, and I said "I guess you do." Why? Because that's what he sounds like to most human ears when he says he can't empathise with someone who killed herself.

Are you seriously suggesting that's not true? You're kidding.

Did you even bother reading my followup?

That said, I suspect we're talking ignorance about the human condition above all. Very common - and often more pronounced online than when talking face to face.

So, he might sound cold - but what he's really sounding like is ignorant. Get it? As in, I don't think he's a cold person - but a person who's ignorant of the human condition - and I make it clear that it's VERY common.

If you think that I'm calling him a monster because I'm nodding at his own suggestion, then you're very, very wrong.

Sounding cold is something most people do probably once a day at least. It's extremely common and you know it.

But if that's what you want to believe, that's what you want to believe.

I'm still curious about just what you think the human condition is, since you've clearly and repeatedly established that knowledge of it is somehow objectively valuable.

I've never even attempted at establishing it as objectively valuable. I can hardly take responsibility for your wild imagination. I know you have a very black/white concept of these things, but you should really be aware by now that I'm NOT like that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to establish the value of knowledge so broadly.

I'm personally both happy and sad about my knowledge of the human condition. I often wish for ignorance, truth be told.

 

[dteowner]

*sigh*

OK, let's take this step by step.
1) He stated his opinion
2) You stated that his opinion demonstrated ignorance of the human condition (among other things, but let's focus). Now, the clear implication there is that knowledge of the human condition would somehow change his stance to match yours, or at the minimum move him in your direction. While I don't know that you actually stated it, it's not much of a reach should we infer that you feel your position is logically superior.
3) Since your opinion is being presented as "more correct" than his, then knowledge of the human condition must have some objective value, otherwise using it as a basis for the ranking of opinions is little more than intellectual wankery at best and intentional misdirection at worst.
4) I certainly wouldn't expect misdirection from you, and pointless pedantry defines a different poster far more than you. What's that leave?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

What is the definition of "human condition" here ?

 

[DArtagnan]

*sigh*

OK, let's take this step by step.
1) He stated his opinion
2) You stated that his opinion demonstrated ignorance of the human condition (among other things, but let's focus). Now, the clear implication there is that knowledge of the human condition would somehow change his stance to match yours, or at the minimum move him in your direction. While I don't know that you actually stated it, it's not much of a reach should we infer that you feel your position is logically superior.
3) Since your opinion is being presented as "more correct" than his, then knowledge of the human condition must have some objective value, otherwise using it as a basis for the ranking of opinions is little more than intellectual wankery at best and intentional misdirection at worst.
4) I certainly wouldn't expect misdirection from you, and pointless pedantry defines a different poster far more than you. What's that leave?

When people are ignorant about a subject that I know a lot about - I find it's potentially useful and valuable to point it out and explain why. Not always, but certainly in cases like this.

That's the only reason I do it - because I'm trying to be utilitarian. I'm not sure if you can grasp the concept of no ego - but there is basically none involved. Except, of course, the part of me that believes I'm qualified to have an opinion about what's useful and that I should be allowed to speak about it openly.

That's also the reason I don't sugar-coat or try to manipulate the message. I try to "un-manipulate" all my messages in these cases, meaning I have no interest in diplomacy but exclusively in delivery. I find that people interpret that approach as if I'm trying to say something other than exactly what I'm saying, which is really awkward and annoying. So, I'm stuck between manipulating my message so as to avoid appearing like I'm being manipulative - or simply speaking as plainly as I can and living with appearing like there's a ton of underlying shit.

I chose the latter approach many years ago, and I can live with the consequences.

As for why I think it's useful? Well, the reason is that I consider ignorance about the human condition one of the primary factors in the misery of the world, as I stated above.

However, I can't prove or establish knowledge of the human condition as objectively valuable. That's pretty much impossible.

Essentially, it's not ignorance that's the problem - but our actions and inactions. I believe a lot of the harm being done to the world is based on ignorance - but if people would simply stop acting without sufficient knowledge in a lot of cases - we'd have a lot less misery.

Essentially, it's a very complex issue.

Also, I can't establish that "misery in the world" is objectively bad.

I suppose you might say that I hope to contribute to less misery in some way, and that less misery is better - based on what I personally think. But I like to leave it up to people to decide for themselves.

So, I stick to what I consider "correct" and "incorrect" as far as I'm able. Again, that's the only reason I stated what I did. Being incorrect, in this case, is believing that people living in a society that has "freedoms" can't have good (or understandable) reasons for killing themselves.

Conclusively, I'm not calling my superior knowledge about the human condition "better" - but simply superior. That's not objectively good - at least I can't prove that it is.

 

[Thrasher]

Dart, I think you are having english problems again.

su·pe·ri·or/səˈpi(ə)rēər/

Adjective:Higher in rank, status, or quality: "a superior officer".
Higher quality = better, at least to most people.

 

[DArtagnan]

No, you're having problems understanding why I put "better" in quotation marks.

I have more/better/superior knowledge - but that's not necessarily an objectively good/superior thing to have.

I appreciate you wanting to point out a flaw for kicks, but it would help if you tried following what I'm saying.

If you take your own example, it would be like saying that a superior officer isn't necessarily a superior human being.

As in, I rank higher in my knowledge of the human condition than Firestorm - but that has nothing to do with my objective value, or the value of that knowledge.

Should be clear by now.

 

[dteowner]

As far as I know, DArt, we're both taking a strictly clinical look at this. It's not a question of ego.

OK, we are actually arguing different aspects of the issue. I kinda dismissed the "western world" assertion and focused on the broader "we should feel pain for a stanger's suicide" angle. You're definitely aiming at the former. I actually agree with you on the "western world" angle. I get what he was aiming at--we don't have nearly the concern of getting shot in the head (for example) in the western world that a Pakistani might, so that "relative pain" issue muddies the waters. I'm far more interested in the discussion of why we should feel pain over a stranger's suicide and what justification the hivemind has to get up in arms because someone said they didn't particularly feel said pain.

That's actually a big part of why I do my level best to make things objective, in spite of getting saddled with the "black-n-white" label for doing so. Once you admit all the relativist subjectivity into a topic, discussion is basically dead. Everything boils down everyone yelling to "According to my criteria, I'm right and my criteria are right because I say they are." For any complex problem, there is one and only one answer for any given parameter set within it. The differences of opinion we rant about really aren't about the answers, but about the parameters of the question. For that reason, it's critical to understand the parameters each person uses and be prepared to defend/justify the "what-fors and whys" of your own parameter choices.

Thus, your argument places priority on the parameter of "knowledge of the human condition". Since you seem to agree that that parameter cannot be defined, it seems to me that you (and, more interesting to me, the hivemind that jumped all over our devil's advocate poster) are building your foundation on quicksand.

 

[Thrasher]

@Dart. Then you shouldn't use the word superior. Again, you're failing on English.

A better phrase may be "more experienced", maybe. But not superior.

 

[DArtagnan]

Then you shouldn't use the word superior. Again, you're failing on English.

A better phrase may be "more experienced", maybe. But not superior.

To accept that I "fail on English" - I'd probably need someone with an actual understanding of its use

What part of putting a word in quotation marks don't you understand? It takes away the literal meaning and it can SPECIFICALLY mean changing the normal meaning of the word.

From wiki:

Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it.

In this case, I used the word better in quotation marks, because while my knowledge is better in the sense that I have more of it - it's not better in the sense that it's better to have more. So, it's both better and NOT NECESSARILY better. That's why I put it in quotation marks.

Which is exactly why I used the word superior - because it indicates rank more than it has an inherent value associated with it.

Unfortunately, our languages are quite flawed - so such things can be necessary to increase understanding. Of course, it kinda depends on the recipient being interested in understanding the message. That's what DTE is - and you're not.

So, not only are you wrong and (very obviously) deliberately obtuse, you're also not contributing anything whatsoever to the thread.

 

[DArtagnan]

As far as I know, DArt, we're both taking a strictly clinical look at this. It's not a question of ego.

I'm glad we understand each other, then.

OK, we are actually arguing different aspects of the issue. I kinda dismissed the "western world" assertion and focused on the broader "we should feel pain for a stanger's suicide" angle. You're definitely aiming at the former. I actually agree with you on the "western world" angle. I get what he was aiming at—we don't have nearly the concern of getting shot in the head (for example) in the western world that a Pakistani might, so that "relative pain" issue muddies the waters. I'm far more interested in the discussion of why we should feel pain over a stranger's suicide and what justification the hivemind has to get up in arms because someone said they didn't particularly feel said pain.

I see no reason why we should feel pain, except if it helps us improve the world.

That said, I think that empathising with people who commit suicide can motivate a greater understanding - and perhaps even a contribution for change.

But I would never tell people that they should feel pain. I consider that beyond our own control, for the most part.

That's actually a big part of why I do my level best to make things objective, in spite of getting saddled with the "black-n-white" label for doing so. Once you admit all the relativist subjectivity into a topic, discussion is basically dead. Everything boils down everyone yelling to "According to my criteria, I'm right and my criteria are right because I say they are." For any complex problem, there is one and only one answer for any given parameter set within it. The differences of opinion we rant about really aren't about the answers, but about the parameters of the question. For that reason, it's critical to understand the parameters each person uses and be prepared to defend/justify the "what-fors and whys" of your own parameter choices.

Not really. To boil down, you actually believe there's a correct answer. I don't believe we can establish the correct answer - but I'm ok with that. I can act without certainty - and I can admit uncertainty whilst doing so.

This is what makes my world a large grey area - and your world mostly black and white. Well, based on how you insist on presenting yourself.

To rephrase: Yes, there can be a correct answer. But in the vast majority of cases - you need such a rigid articulation of the question that the correct answer becomes useless in its own rigidity and limitation.

Thus, your argument places priority on the parameter of "knowledge of the human condition". Since you seem to agree that that parameter cannot be defined, it seems to me that you (and, more interesting to me, the hivemind that jumped all over our devil's advocate poster) are building your foundation on quicksand.

I really have no idea what you're saying here. I don't know if I place "priority" on the "parameter" of the knowledge of the human condition.

Maybe I do, but a simpler way of putting it is that I'm talking about the knowledge of the human condition.

I have no idea why that's quicksand to you.

 

[Thrasher]

To accept that I "fail on English" - I'd probably need someone with an actual understanding of its use

What part of putting a word in quotation marks don't you understand? It takes away the literal meaning and it can SPECIFICALLY mean changing the normal meaning of the word.

From wiki:

Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it.

In this case, I used the word better in quotation marks, because while my knowledge is better in the sense that I have more of it - it's not better in the sense that it's better to have more. So, it's both better and NOT NECESSARILY better. That's why I put it in quotation marks.

Which is exactly why I used the word superior - because it indicates rank more than it has an inherent value associated with it.

Unfortunately, our languages are quite flawed - so such things can be necessary to increase understanding. Of course, it kinda depends on the recipient being interested in understanding the message. That's what DTE is - and you're not.

So, not only are you wrong and (very obviously) deliberately obtuse, you're also not contributing anything whatsoever to the thread.

Now you are lying. You put the word better in quotes not superior. Please try not to be stupid jackass for once. Superior in this context usually means better. Again, your failing at English is your downfall...

 

[DArtagnan]

Now you are lying. You put the word better in quotes not superior. Please try not to be stupid jackass for once. Superior in this context usually means better. Again, your failing at English is your downfall…

Try reading the part where I'm specifically stating I put the word better in quotation marks and why.

It's line #9 in your quote.

Oh, and I generally don't lie.

I'm being the stupid jackass here? You come into a thread where you have no business and try to correct my English - as if that was even important to anyone but yourself - and when you fail, you act like a child without his lollipop.

I'm sorry, but if I wanted a teacher - I'd probably pick one with some integrity as well as the actual desire and ability to teach the subject at hand.

 

[Thrasher]

Try reading the part where I'm specifically stating I put the word better in quotation marks and why.

It's line #9 in your quote.

Oh, and I generally don't lie.

I'm being the stupid jackass here? You come into a thread where you have no business and try to correct my English - as if that was even important to anyone but yourself - and when you fail, you act like a child without his lollipop.

I'm sorry, but if I wanted a teacher - I'd probably pick one with some integrity as well as the actual desire and ability to teach the subject at hand.

You moron. I was talking abut the word "superior" not "better". You said you put it quotes. You did not. You are misusing the word superior, but of course you'd imagine everything you do as superior considering how full of yourself you are. But in reality you are just rambling moron with a need for attention with poor English skills.

 

[JDR13]

Sheesh... calm down, people.

 

[DArtagnan]

You moron. I was talking abut the word "superior" not "better". You said you put it quotes. You did not. You are misusing the word superior, but of course you'd imagine everything you do as superior considering how full of yourself you are. But in reality you are just rambling moron with a need for attention with poor English skills.

You seem very upset, maybe you should try breathing?

No, I never said I put the word superior in quotation marks.

You came into the thread saying that superior and better is basically the same thing - and I explained to you why I put the word better in quotation marks AND why I used the word superior.

Now, I know you apparently think superior means exactly the same as better - but it doesn't have to. I used it precisely to indicate a higher rank of knowledge WITHOUT an inherent value to that rank.

That's what I mean by not calling my knowledge "better". Again, using quotation marks to explain that it's actually BOTH better (as in, superior) and NOT NECESSARILY better (as in, having that superior knowledge is not necessarily of higher value).

If you think I have poor English skills, then I think I can probably get over it. I'm quite pleased with my own ability to communicate in that language, especially considering it's not my mother tongue.

In any case, you're not making much of an impression and I have to say I think I was being quite clear to anyone willing to actually read.

Also, if you think you can convince me by throwing insults and acting like a baby - then you're in for a disappointment