RainAndSadness
Administrator
- Jun 12, 2018
- 2,083
As you know I'm trying to debunk the hysteria surrounding SN and just recently I stumbled upon an interesting article again. So, according to this article, Colorado is trying to ban the sale of concentrated SN.
Okay. That state has a population of 5.8 million. What drastic numbers of people must have used SN as a method to exercise their right to die to justify such drastic legislation and ban the sale of concentrated SN entirely? Well, according to the article, it's... 31 successful suicides in 5 years.
31 suicides. In 5 years. Just to put that into perspective, Colorado had 690 firearm suicides in the year 2022 according to this website, the latest figure I could find. In one year. If we count all firearm suicides from the last 5 years, that would be 3384(!) suicides via firearm discharge.
Breaking it down by year:
2018: 658 firearm suicides
2019: 647 firearm suicides
2020: 649 firearm suicides
2021: 740 firearm suicides
2022: 690 firearm suicides
Let's visualize the scope of the scope of these suicides and put the methods right next to each other:
Left, red bar: SN suicides. Right, black bar: firearm suicides. In Colorado. One pixel per person, stacked on top of each other. Interesting isn't it. Now, you would think if they really cared about suicide so much, reducing access to firearms (if you sincerely believe restricting access to suicide methods reduces the numbers) would be their first priority, right? Why focus on a method that has merely 31 suicides over a timespan of 5 years when there is a method that led to over 3'300 deaths in the same timespan? That's odd, don't you think? Like, doesn't this highlight a systemic issue in our society? And is it maybe the hysteria of the media that contributes to such absurd legislation where SN has a higher priority than firearms despite it being the main method of suicide in the country for decades? The point is, I don't think any of these people pushing for these laws care about suicide. SN is a relatively peaceful method, without a doubt and that's the problem. Society doesn't like that. That's why they're restricting access because suicide prevention has never been about improving your life and fixing your issues, it's always been about taking away your means to exercise your right to die peacefully, to infringe on your autonomy and to prolong your suffering. That's literally one of the fundamental dogmas of suicide prevention: the idea that taking away your means to exercise your individual autonomy is a good thing because it allegedly reduces the numbers of suicide - without of course acknowledging that having more miserable people on the planet who want to die isn't an improvement, at all. In fact, it's worse because you deny people the right to make their own choices. It's brainrot, that's why we're saying suicide prevention is pro-suffering because you only care about taking away the means of suicide. Suicide is a symptom. You don't fix anything by targeting the symptom. The problem is people are suffering and that's where your focus and attention should be. You don't want to change the amount of people on this planet who suffer. That's literally the problem and I don't know how often I need to say it but I've been saying this over and over and over again in all my threads responding to the media and they don't get it. I'm literally trying to point people into the right direction - without any success at all. But the graph above proves one thing: pro-lifers aren't okay. It's not us that is the problem, it's all the people out there who believe for ideological reasons that prevening relief from pain is a good thing. That's all I can say.
And look, firearm suicides aren't a new thing, right. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 11'414 people have used firearms to end their life since the year 2000. 17'300 did since 1980. So what's happening? Why is the priority on a method like SN? Because it's relatively peaceful compared to other methods and as I've pointed out, that's the problem.
What's really gross in my opinion is how the victims of that suicide method are treated in the media. We regularly see articles about SN being plastered with the faces of those who decided to exercise their right to die with that method - of course without their consent, right. I doubt the people who decided to end their life wanted to become part of a shallow suicide prevention campaign with the only goal to restrict access to a method, completely ignoring that the cause of suicide lies elsewhere. But the consent to share their pictures in these articles is given by those who are left behind. And the narrative of victimization and infantilization of grown adults who made an automous decision to end their suffering as a final act of emanzipation has also been created by those who are left behind and they gave consent to share that narrative - without any regard for their right to privacy. And I find it gross, tbh, how these people are speaking on behalf of the person who committed suicide as if they knew their position on this issue and how the media exploits these deaths for a misguided suicde prevention camapaign. As if they would agree with the notion that reducing access to methods is in any way desirable or helpful to reduce anyone's struggles. It's not. People who are suffering from suicide ideation know that taking away access to methods isn't enough and that meaningful suicide prevention targets the causes of suicide. And yeah that's a multifaceted issue and it's complicated. But that's not my problem. This entire forum here is filled with stories of people who are suffering yet instead of listening to us and acknowledging what we need, why we want to die, you demonize this forum and turn us into a scapegoat. You don't want to listen and you're looking away, intentionally. So let me say it again, for those who are deaf and blind: banning SN isn't going to improve the life of one single suicidal person, okay. That's a hard pill to swallow but if you want to improve people's lives you will have to swallow it, otherwise all that's going to happen is the people who would have left with SN will pick a different method because they're still suicidal even if you take away that particular method. And as we see, in the US there is an equally accessable method to commit suicide and that's firearms. And people use it. 26'993 did so in 2022, it's an all-time high. Never before have so many people in the US committed suicide with that method in one year. Do I need to say anything else to make my point? Does that look like a healthy society to you...?
And who is in the front and center of all these legislative efforts surounding accessability of SN? Carrie Goldberg, the white knight for everyone who hates SN.
I already talked about that lawyer in my thread discussing the outcome of the Amazon lawsuit. Good to see that she still cares about the real issues, huh? No, I guess pushing for more restrictive gun laws is too much work for her - which is what she should be doing if she really cared about suicide, right? And again, just for you, Carrie Goldberg, reducing access to a method doesn't do anything if you don't fix the underlying causes of suicide. If you ban SN, people will pick a different method. If you ban firearms, people will pick a different method. You don't improve society if you legislate away the symptoms. It doesn't work like that. But sure, keep wasting money and time to virtue signal to your Twitter crowd how you're fighting the good fight tackling a niche suicide method. What you're actually targeting though is the individual autonomy of mentally competent adults. Congratulations.
So yeah, what's the conclusion here? It's a new year and nothing has changed. Wonderful.
Okay. That state has a population of 5.8 million. What drastic numbers of people must have used SN as a method to exercise their right to die to justify such drastic legislation and ban the sale of concentrated SN entirely? Well, according to the article, it's... 31 successful suicides in 5 years.
31 suicides. In 5 years. Just to put that into perspective, Colorado had 690 firearm suicides in the year 2022 according to this website, the latest figure I could find. In one year. If we count all firearm suicides from the last 5 years, that would be 3384(!) suicides via firearm discharge.
Breaking it down by year:
2018: 658 firearm suicides
2019: 647 firearm suicides
2020: 649 firearm suicides
2021: 740 firearm suicides
2022: 690 firearm suicides
Let's visualize the scope of the scope of these suicides and put the methods right next to each other:
Left, red bar: SN suicides. Right, black bar: firearm suicides. In Colorado. One pixel per person, stacked on top of each other. Interesting isn't it. Now, you would think if they really cared about suicide so much, reducing access to firearms (if you sincerely believe restricting access to suicide methods reduces the numbers) would be their first priority, right? Why focus on a method that has merely 31 suicides over a timespan of 5 years when there is a method that led to over 3'300 deaths in the same timespan? That's odd, don't you think? Like, doesn't this highlight a systemic issue in our society? And is it maybe the hysteria of the media that contributes to such absurd legislation where SN has a higher priority than firearms despite it being the main method of suicide in the country for decades? The point is, I don't think any of these people pushing for these laws care about suicide. SN is a relatively peaceful method, without a doubt and that's the problem. Society doesn't like that. That's why they're restricting access because suicide prevention has never been about improving your life and fixing your issues, it's always been about taking away your means to exercise your right to die peacefully, to infringe on your autonomy and to prolong your suffering. That's literally one of the fundamental dogmas of suicide prevention: the idea that taking away your means to exercise your individual autonomy is a good thing because it allegedly reduces the numbers of suicide - without of course acknowledging that having more miserable people on the planet who want to die isn't an improvement, at all. In fact, it's worse because you deny people the right to make their own choices. It's brainrot, that's why we're saying suicide prevention is pro-suffering because you only care about taking away the means of suicide. Suicide is a symptom. You don't fix anything by targeting the symptom. The problem is people are suffering and that's where your focus and attention should be. You don't want to change the amount of people on this planet who suffer. That's literally the problem and I don't know how often I need to say it but I've been saying this over and over and over again in all my threads responding to the media and they don't get it. I'm literally trying to point people into the right direction - without any success at all. But the graph above proves one thing: pro-lifers aren't okay. It's not us that is the problem, it's all the people out there who believe for ideological reasons that prevening relief from pain is a good thing. That's all I can say.
And look, firearm suicides aren't a new thing, right. According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 11'414 people have used firearms to end their life since the year 2000. 17'300 did since 1980. So what's happening? Why is the priority on a method like SN? Because it's relatively peaceful compared to other methods and as I've pointed out, that's the problem.
What's really gross in my opinion is how the victims of that suicide method are treated in the media. We regularly see articles about SN being plastered with the faces of those who decided to exercise their right to die with that method - of course without their consent, right. I doubt the people who decided to end their life wanted to become part of a shallow suicide prevention campaign with the only goal to restrict access to a method, completely ignoring that the cause of suicide lies elsewhere. But the consent to share their pictures in these articles is given by those who are left behind. And the narrative of victimization and infantilization of grown adults who made an automous decision to end their suffering as a final act of emanzipation has also been created by those who are left behind and they gave consent to share that narrative - without any regard for their right to privacy. And I find it gross, tbh, how these people are speaking on behalf of the person who committed suicide as if they knew their position on this issue and how the media exploits these deaths for a misguided suicde prevention camapaign. As if they would agree with the notion that reducing access to methods is in any way desirable or helpful to reduce anyone's struggles. It's not. People who are suffering from suicide ideation know that taking away access to methods isn't enough and that meaningful suicide prevention targets the causes of suicide. And yeah that's a multifaceted issue and it's complicated. But that's not my problem. This entire forum here is filled with stories of people who are suffering yet instead of listening to us and acknowledging what we need, why we want to die, you demonize this forum and turn us into a scapegoat. You don't want to listen and you're looking away, intentionally. So let me say it again, for those who are deaf and blind: banning SN isn't going to improve the life of one single suicidal person, okay. That's a hard pill to swallow but if you want to improve people's lives you will have to swallow it, otherwise all that's going to happen is the people who would have left with SN will pick a different method because they're still suicidal even if you take away that particular method. And as we see, in the US there is an equally accessable method to commit suicide and that's firearms. And people use it. 26'993 did so in 2022, it's an all-time high. Never before have so many people in the US committed suicide with that method in one year. Do I need to say anything else to make my point? Does that look like a healthy society to you...?
And who is in the front and center of all these legislative efforts surounding accessability of SN? Carrie Goldberg, the white knight for everyone who hates SN.
I already talked about that lawyer in my thread discussing the outcome of the Amazon lawsuit. Good to see that she still cares about the real issues, huh? No, I guess pushing for more restrictive gun laws is too much work for her - which is what she should be doing if she really cared about suicide, right? And again, just for you, Carrie Goldberg, reducing access to a method doesn't do anything if you don't fix the underlying causes of suicide. If you ban SN, people will pick a different method. If you ban firearms, people will pick a different method. You don't improve society if you legislate away the symptoms. It doesn't work like that. But sure, keep wasting money and time to virtue signal to your Twitter crowd how you're fighting the good fight tackling a niche suicide method. What you're actually targeting though is the individual autonomy of mentally competent adults. Congratulations.
So yeah, what's the conclusion here? It's a new year and nothing has changed. Wonderful.
Last edited:
