Venting arguing with the suicidal seems disingenuous

[lamargue]

pro-life and pro-choice discourse seems to require that we have faithful representatives in order to make a sound case for why the pro-choice position should be considered a rational one, and this is undermined by the fact that many on the pro-life spectrum believe those who suffer from suicidal ideation to be inherently irrational and thus incapable of sound argument. i've come to realize that arguing through logic alone is insufficient for understanding the opposing side. it's necessary to be empathic in dealing with opposing ideals, especially when those voicing dissent in our views may not be able to represent their arguments faithfully due to some impairment on their part.

in the case of the suicidal, i would argue that many are not in a state wherein they can convey their arguments faithfully, due to variables which might undermine how they express their views. for instance, those suffering from depression may not have the energy to convey themselves faithfully, despite believing themselves to be fully capable of rational thought; in a verbal setting, this capacity may be overlooked in favour of debating ability, which is conflated with how faithful they are to their original position. there are inevitably going to be those who aren't entirely consistent in their views, and thus might be refuted on the basis of some small technicality; the particular circumstances involved in ones desire to die might not be articulable in an entirely rational way, which may present itself as an opportunity for those who oppose the suicidal individual's position to make deflationary claims in order to underscore their general pro-life sentiment. this is not to undermine the intelligence of those who are suicidal, but rather that the pro-life position tends to rely on anecdotal justification ("i've tried to argue with X in the past, and i perceived that the entire argument was inconsistent.. so clearly those who hold such ideas are inherently incapable of according with what i perceive to be rational -- they are impaired due to circumstances such as depression which cloud their thoughts!") in order to proactively deny the pro-choice position, according as those who are not the best representatives are tasked with defending the entire stronghold.

it can be extremely tiring to argue against a status quo position, especially when you lack the energy to do so. the burden should fall on those in the pro-life position to be more empathic in their reasoning; if an individual is incapable of strongholding the gamut of pro-choice views, this might be because they lack the capacity to convey their points in debate, and not necessarily the inherent contradictions of such a position. this to me seems very common on a local level i.e trying to have others understand your own intentions, despite protest

maybe this applies more to a pro-mortalist position, which is more philosophical, yet is often a form of justifying ones own suicidal intent

 

[willitpass]

I fall into the camp of being very certain that I am making a reasonable and rational decision to CTB but being far too depressed and pessimistic to be able to argue with anyone who says otherwise. I hardly have energy to do anything other than lay in bed doing nothing anymore, being an activist for change and debate isn't exactly on my radar. I know the fact that I struggle to get myself to brush my teeth would only be used against me to claim that I'm "not of my right mind", which is quite unfortunate. I believe I make strong and reasonable arguments to my need to CTB, but I know that will never be perceived that way by someone who is convinced they know what's best for me. If they spent a day in my head maybe, just maybe, it would be enough for them to see someone can be both rational and in mental agony at the same time. And maybe it's the depression or maybe it's just me, but it feels futile. It's not something most people are ever going to be willing to change their opinion on. This is a very emotionally charged and decisive topic without much room for change. Believing suicide is not always the wrong choice will likely always be the minority.

 

[badtothebone]

pro-life and pro-choice discourse seems to require that we have faithful representatives in order to make a sound case for why the pro-choice position should be considered a rational one, and this is undermined by the fact that many on the pro-life spectrum believe those who suffer from suicidal ideation to be inherently irrational and thus incapable of sound argument. i've come to realize that arguing through logic alone is insufficient for understanding the opposing side. it's necessary to be empathic in dealing with opposing ideals, especially when those voicing dissent in our views may not be able to represent their arguments faithfully due to some impairment on their part.

in the case of the suicidal, i would argue that many are not in a state wherein they can convey their arguments faithfully, due to variables which might undermine how they express their views. for instance, those suffering from depression may not have the energy to convey themselves faithfully, despite believing themselves to be fully capable of rational thought; in a verbal setting, this capacity may be overlooked in favour of debating ability, which is conflated with how faithful they are to their original position. there are inevitably going to be those who aren't entirely consistent in their views, and thus might be refuted on the basis of some small technicality; the particular circumstances involved in ones desire to die might not be articulable in an entirely rational way, which may present itself as an opportunity for those who oppose the suicidal individual's position to make deflationary claims in order to underscore their general pro-life sentiment. this is not to undermine the intelligence of those who are suicidal, but rather that the pro-life position tends to rely on anecdotal justification ("i've tried to argue with X in the past, and i perceived that the entire argument was inconsistent.. so clearly those who hold such ideas are inherently incapable of according with what i perceive to be rational -- they are impaired due to circumstances such as depression which cloud their thoughts!") in order to proactively deny the pro-choice position, according as those who are not the best representatives are tasked with defending the entire stronghold.

it can be extremely tiring to argue against a status quo position, especially when you lack the energy to do so. the burden should fall on those in the pro-life position to be more empathic in their reasoning; if an individual is incapable of strongholding the gamut of pro-choice views, this might be because they lack the capacity to convey their points in debate, and not necessarily the inherent contradictions of such a position. this to me seems very common on a local level i.e trying to have others understand your own intentions, despite protest

maybe this applies more to a pro-mortalist position, which is more philosophical, yet is often a form of justifying ones own suicidal intent

I agree @lamargue And arguing to explain myself is something I will never do. When I'm ready to died, I will be dead without asking anyone permission. It's a matter of finding the right method with me. I just don't have the energy to argue with anyone- none lives my pain but me.

 

[SoulWhisperer]

That's some well structured speech,