Discussion 'Too Young', 'Too Old', 'Just right' ...

[Una]

That is the question and yes - it has been formulated in this manner to provoke thinking as a pre-requisite for, hopefully, a robust, but respectful debate.

Here is why.

While the similar question has been asked and debated few times already, I do not think, or at least have not seen, that an underlaying issue had been addressed. It is my view that the underlaying issue is also the real, driving issue. Let me explain:

To start with, the descriptors such as; 'too young', 'to old', 'just right' are highly subjective and, amongst other factors, influenced by cultural context. Nevertheless;

When someone voices a view that some people, usually in their twenties or younger, might be too young to contemplate suicide, such views are vehemently attacked and the person who expressed those views labelled as a 'pro-lifer' or similar. Putting aside that the term 'pro-lifer' is in itself debatable, on the forum it stands for a persona non grata. The classic excommunication tactics follow. It is not unusual to read lengthy posting justifying one's presence on this forum by outlining how suicidal they are, and/or how many failed attempts they have had. All because they aired an unpopular view. Which, I think is, where the underlying issue lies. Namely;

Why is 'no judgment' rule/doctrine observed selectively? In other words – if the views aired in support of the argument that an age is irrelevant when it comes to suicide are acceptable and are not to be judged against, then surely the directly opposite views that an age is indeed relevant, must also be acceptable and not judged against! It is the basic, most fundamental test of any argument worthy of its name – to withstand a rigours examination from the opposite side. Keeping in mind that the 'rigours examination' does not require an agreement. Only, an objective, impartial and respectful mind. More than four hundred years ago Voltaire declared: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' On that basis;

Labelling and attacking those that express an unpopular view, seems far more akin to a school-yard bullying, than a respectful, balanced, and dare I say MATURE debate. If you are old enough to defend your right to die, then you are old enough to respect the views of those who challenge it. Not deny it, just challenge it. Respectfully. And, if you are incredibly lucky, lovingly. With genuine humanity, care, and compassion. Yes, I know – given the state of the world – you would really have to be incredibly lucky for something like that. For something as quintessentially human as having someone who truly sees you and cares about you sit quietly by your side and just let you talk. Let you argue. Let your rage, curse, spit, cry …. whatever it is that you need. Until you tire yourself out and their hand still holds yours. And yes, I know – after all that you might still decide to suicide one day. But and it is a big BUT, you would have had that chance! I do not care how unpopular this might be, but I truly believe that every human being under 25 years of age is entitled to at least one such chance before they depart. Chance to be truly seen, loved, cared for. I am only too aware that, sadly, many never get it. That does not change the fact that they were fully entitled to it. By the sheer fact of being born. Their parents owe it to them. If, for whatever reasons, parents are unable/unwilling to fulfil that critical parent duty, they should provide for someone(s) willing and able. Even if paid professionals (such as nannies, psychologists, etc.).

Lastly there is a simple maths – I am in my mid-fifties. Even if I invest time, money and energy into therapies, and those therapies produce some results, the more optimistic estimate gives me some 10 to 15 years of, at best, more bearable old-age. This I think is easy to understand. As it is that if I am in my mid-twenties, the same investment of time, money and energy, and the same outcome of 'some results' from therapies, would give me an estimate of some 45 to 50 years of life. Yes, of course, life with all its unpredictability included. As we all know – there are no guarantees. Except one – death severs all possibilities finally and firmly.



I apologise if this post is too long and thank you for reading.

Before to leave, let me cite one of my favourite poets: 'For one human being to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation.' (RMR)

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

A pro-lifer is indeed persona non grata here if they are trying to enact a pro-life agenda. The very foundation of the forum is freedom of choice for all adults, and the pro-life agenda is against the choice to ctb, and seeks to block that choice in a variety of ways. I've observed there have been some older members here who are not pro-lifers, but have a personal stance that someone is too young to make such a decision, and I have observed that there are some pro-lifers who want to get younger members to change their minds by planting seeds of doubt.

But because of the foundation of the forum, this is the one space members of all ages over 18 have the power to say NO, to call out, and defend their boundaries. Off the forum, they are bombarded with being questioned and negated for even considering ctb by friends, family members, and society. They can have their civil liberties taken from them for having suicidal thoughts or intentions. In stark contrast, SS is a safe and sanctioned space to express those thoughts and intentions. The rationale presented in the OP seems to me to turn it around that justified reactions to being negated, minimized, and questioned is victimizing to the questioner, when it is in fact people who are refusing to be victims to the pro-life agenda standing up and saying, "I identify this behavior as pro-life/anti-pro-choice. This is the one space where such behavior is not welcome. Back off."

It is unfortunate that infiltration happens here on a regular basis, often in waves. Generally, members of the forum are conscientious and don't want to hurt others, and a covert manipulator with a pro-life agenda will use that to their advantage, hoping that folks will either explain away the behaviors in order to give more benefit of the doubt than is merited and stay quiet, or quickly back off from doubting and feel badly about themselves, as if they are a victimizer rather than a potential or actual victim of an agenda that does not belong here and is expressly prohibited.

In my time on the forum, my experience is that pro-lifers have a certain way of presenting things that gets younger folks to question their choice to ctb, offer script-like advice and perspectives, but also try to blend in and say, "I'm suicidal, too." It's their actions over time that prove they are either genuine in the asking, or acting covertly in a script-like pattern, and continue to push the pro-life agenda. The most recent example was dibbydoo, who claimed to be suicidal but whose messages were overtly and increasingly pro-life, and s/he was banned. Sometimes pro-lifers can remain on the forum for a long time, pretending to be suicidal, but much more subtly pushing the pro-life agenda than as did dibbydoo, quietly sowing seeds in hopes they will take root and grow, even if only to "save" one or two lives.

What I perhaps incorrectly sense in the OP is a fear that someone will be hurt when they who are asking such questions are also questioned, when their actions are identified as appearing to fall into a category that is well-established here, the label of pro-life. Another message I intuit is to be rational, to judge not if you don't want to be judged. And these are attitudes a pro-life infiltrator relies on to make the work easier for them. If you've ever met a covert manipulator irl, they may use tactics to turn the negative focus around onto the person who questions them so that they will question and doubt themselves, such as playing the victim or vilifying the one they tried to manipulate. They may pretend to use strong emotion to cause self-doubt in those who doubt them, such as brandishing anger or acting excessively wounded. They may mimic how someone genuine would respond to the same doubts, staying under cover for a while, and when trust has been re-established, continue on as before in pushing the agenda. If it is just a one-off, with no pro-life agenda, then their consistent behaviors over time will prove that.

I agree that calm and reasoned responses in general generate better results, but I also understand impassioned defensiveness in the one place where it's meant to be safe to consider ctb and to set off the alarms when there is a whiff of pro-life infiltration. Personally, I would much rather, if someone smells smoke and suspects there's a fire, to yell fire and be wrong, than to smell smoke, suspect fire, and say nothing for worry of being wrong. I would hope that someone who is genuinely pro-choice but seemed to present as pro-life and got called out for it would say, "Oops, you're right, that smelled like pro-life, carry on being pro-choice, and I'm glad to be alongside you since I want the same choice you do. You're an adult, I'm an adult, you're capable, I'm capable. Won't happen again, and my actions going forward will show that."

 

[Una]

A pro-lifer is indeed persona non grata here if they are trying to enact a pro-life agenda. The very foundation of the forum is freedom of choice for all adults, and the pro-life agenda is against the choice to ctb, and seeks to block that choice in a variety of ways. I've observed there have been some older members here who are not pro-lifers, but have a personal stance that someone is too young to make such a decision, and I have observed that there are some pro-lifers who want to get younger members to change their minds by planting seeds of doubt.

But because of the foundation of the forum, this is the one space members of all ages over 18 have the power to say NO, to call out, and defend their boundaries. Off the forum, they are bombarded with being questioned and negated for even considering ctb by friends, family members, and society. They can have their civil liberties taken from them for having suicidal thoughts or intentions. In stark contrast, SS is a safe and sanctioned space to express those thoughts and intentions. The rationale presented in the OP seems to me to turn it around that justified reactions to being negated, minimized, and questioned is victimizing to the questioner, when it is in fact people who are refusing to be victims to the pro-life agenda standing up and saying, "I identify this behavior as pro-life/anti-pro-choice. This is the one space where such behavior is not welcome. Back off."

It is unfortunate that infiltration happens here on a regular basis, often in waves. Generally, members of the forum are conscientious and don't want to hurt others, and a covert manipulator with a pro-life agenda will use that to their advantage, hoping that folks will either explain away the behaviors in order to give more benefit of the doubt than is merited and stay quiet, or quickly back off from doubting and feel badly about themselves, as if they are a victimizer rather than a potential or actual victim of an agenda that does not belong here and is expressly prohibited.

In my time on the forum, my experience is that pro-lifers have a certain way of presenting things that gets younger folks to question their choice to ctb, offer script-like advice and perspectives, but also try to blend in and say, "I'm suicidal, too." It's their actions over time that prove they are either genuine in the asking, or acting covertly in a script-like pattern, and continue to push the pro-life agenda. The most recent example was dibbydoo, who claimed to be suicidal but whose messages were overtly and increasingly pro-life, and s/he was banned. Sometimes pro-lifers can remain on the forum for a long time, pretending to be suicidal, but much more subtly pushing the pro-life agenda than as did dibbydoo, quietly sowing seeds in hopes they will take root and grow, even if only to "save" one or two lives.

What I perhaps incorrectly sense in the OP is a fear that someone will be hurt when they who are asking such questions are also questioned, when their actions are identified as appearing to fall into a category that is well-established here, the label of pro-life. Another message I intuit is to be rational, to judge not if you don't want to be judged. And these are attitudes a pro-life infiltrator relies on to make the work easier for them. If you've ever met a covert manipulator irl, they may use tactics to turn the negative focus around onto the person who questions them so that they will question and doubt themselves, such as playing the victim or vilifying the one they tried to manipulate. They may pretend to use strong emotion to cause self-doubt in those who doubt them, such as brandishing anger or acting excessively wounded. They may mimic how someone genuine would respond to the same doubts, staying under cover for a while, and when trust has been re-established, continue on as before in pushing the agenda. If it is just a one-off, with no pro-life agenda, then their consistent behaviors over time will prove that.

I agree that calm and reasoned responses in general generate better results, but I also understand impassioned defensiveness in the one place where it's meant to be safe to consider ctb and to set off the alarms when there is a whiff of pro-life infiltration. Personally, I would much rather, if someone smells smoke and suspects there's a fire, to yell fire and be wrong, than to smell smoke, suspect fire, and say nothing for worry of being wrong. I would hope that someone who is genuinely pro-choice but seemed to present as pro-life and got called out for it would say, "Oops, you're right, that smelled like pro-life, carry on being pro-choice, and I'm glad to be alongside you since I want the same choice you do. You're an adult, I'm an adult, you're capable, I'm capable. Won't happen again, and my actions going forward will show that."

Hi 'GoodPersonEffed',

Thank you for your contribution.

I am not sure that the gist of what I have tried to convey has come through, so let me summarise it here:

• Unlike so called 'pro-life' stance that excludes any consideration other than preservation of life by all means/costs, 'pro-choice' stance includes consideration of both options – life and ending of it - as equally valid choices. It purports to do so in an open, informed and respectful manner. If that is understood and agreed on than it must surely follow that,
• An open, informed and respectful discussion about the 'pro-choice's' two options, inevitably includes discussion of age in relation to ending of life. Such discussion by no means intends to minimise anyone's choice, or to imply that suicide is only permissible at certain age. That would be preposterous, not only because, in reality, nobody needs anyone's approval and/or agreement to end their own existence, but also because such an argument would invalidate the very discussion it aimed to start. Which is to facilitate the exchange of wide range of opinions/ideas in a safe and respectful manner without a fear of being labelled 'pro-lifer' or similar by a self-styled and self-appointed vigilantes who take upon themselves to 'patrol' the forum and 'denounce' those who they consider 'infiltrators' – in itself an indicative choice of terminology.
• Expressing a view, any view, including that younger people have more to lose by ending their lives, then their older counterparts, should never result in anything more than an equally respectfully formulated response(s), based on reasoning, not assumptions, insinuations, or labelling. Suggesting that someone is a 'pro-lifer', an 'infiltrator' and/or 'covert manipulator' because they expressed a different, perhaps a controversial view, takes the dialogue out of the realm of a debate and makes it personal, which can be harmful especially to those more vulnerable who then feel obliged to justify not only their views, but their presence on the forum too. To 'prove their worth.' Nobody should be made to feel that way.

In conclusion – 'pro-choice' values are strengthened, not diminished, by inclusion of wide-ranging, including controversial views.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Hi 'GoodPersonEffed',

Thank you for your contribution.

I am not sure that the gist of what I have tried to convey has come through, so let me summarise it here:

• Unlike so called 'pro-life' stance that excludes any consideration other than preservation of life by all means/costs, 'pro-choice' stance includes consideration of both options – life and ending of it - as equally valid choices. It purports to do so in an open, informed and respectful manner. If that is understood and agreed on than it must surely follow that,
• An open, informed and respectful discussion about the 'pro-choice's' two options, inevitably includes discussion of age in relation to ending of life. Such discussion by no means intends to minimise anyone's choice, or to imply that suicide is only permissible at certain age. That would be preposterous, not only because, in reality, nobody needs anyone's approval and/or agreement to end their own existence, but also because such an argument would invalidate the very discussion it aimed to start. Which is to facilitate the exchange of wide range of opinions/ideas in a safe and respectful manner without a fear of being labelled 'pro-lifer' or similar by a self-styled and self-appointed vigilantes who take upon themselves to 'patrol' the forum and 'denounce' those who they consider 'infiltrators' – in itself an indicative choice of terminology.
• Expressing a view, any view, including that younger people have more to lose by ending their lives, then their older counterparts, should never result in anything more than an equally respectfully formulated response(s), based on reasoning, not assumptions, insinuations, or labelling. Suggesting that someone is a 'pro-lifer', an 'infiltrator' and/or 'covert manipulator' because they expressed a different, perhaps a controversial view, takes the dialogue out of the realm of a debate and makes it personal, which can be harmful especially to those more vulnerable who then feel obliged to justify not only their views, but their presence on the forum too. To 'prove their worth.' Nobody should be made to feel that way.

In conclusion – 'pro-choice' values are strengthened, not diminished, by inclusion of wide-ranging, including controversial views.

Thank you, @Una. I read your response closely, and I think I can see where there may be a spark for the conflicts that you are speaking about and seek to avoid, or rather, seek to use to empower the values of pro-choice rather than to evolve into conflict.

I find the spark in your third point, especially the final two sentences: To 'prove their worth.' Nobody should be made to feel that way.

What I've observed when an older member questions younger members' considerations of ending their lives is that it often seems to put the younger people in a defensive position to prove their own worth to make such a decision, such that they are perceived as lacking in enough capability, awareness, and/or experience to make such a choice.

I am a 49-year-old woman, and I stand in a relatively neutral place about this. There are times when I have noticed that a younger person presents their story in such a way that suicide seems to be a rash decision that may potentially be caused by incomplete cognitive neural development and/or a lack of life experience that, given time, may help them develop the coping skills they need. I try to point this out in a way that says, "This is my perspective, but I also respect that I am not you, and it is ultimately your choice." In other words, I try to not define them solely based on age and inexperience, but to make my observation just one factor in what is clearly a complex issue, also limited by the environment of a forum where we get only pieces of a story and cannot observe the person or the whole situation. I try to empower them with both information and the affirmation of their right and ability to choose for themselves.

But this is just the way I am. I was negated as a child and teenager, and was equal parts rash and insightful beyond my years. In my twenties, I volunteered with teenagers, and they often told me how much they enjoyed that I talked to them as an equal, rather than talking at them or talking down to them. My goal was to empower them, not control or correct them. I am still that way. And I still take umbrage when someone says I cannot comprehend a situation because I have not personally experienced it.

Please don't take this as me being self-righteous. I do plenty of things wrong on the forum and irl. But I observe how younger people here respond to me, and I observe when they feel minimized and negated by others who question their choices based on age, and how they become defensive, whether they are questioned as a separated group of younger people, or a single separated younger person. I become defensive for them as well. There is, to me, a difference between noticing and acknowledging one trait among many, and marginalizing based solely on that one trait.

I agree with much of what you wrote in your summary, but I respectfully disagree with your assertion that discussions by no means are intended to minimize one's choice. I don't want to start a battle on this thread by including examples, but there have been times when a very small number of members have negated a younger person's choice to suicide based solely on age, with no pro-life agenda, simply stating they don't think anyone under the age of 30 should ctb, and on those threads, battles ensued.

As I mentioned in my previous post here, I have observed there are some older members who have a personal stance about choosing ctb before a certain age, and there are some members who speak as if they have not just a stance but an agenda. Sometimes I misinterpret the agenda, and others do as well, and in this environment, an agenda that has even a whiff of pro-life can set off sparks on a powder keg that's always in the corner of every page of the whole forum.

I thoroughly agree with your assertion that pro-choice includes both living and self-deliverance. It is as wrong within the ethos of this environment to push death as it is to push life, and questioning either decision brings things to light through discussion, which is healthy and productive. Pointing out another's age, when presented in certain ways, can be marginalizing and minimizing, or it can be enlightening, and sometimes it's as much a matter of how it is taken as how it is presented. Whether the defensiveness is provoked or is a personal reaction, the discussion turns into a battle of proving worth: the right to autonomy and agency based on age vs. the intention to approve or disapprove of the right to choose.

 

[voyager (D)]

Everyone on this forum has their reasons for being suicidal and I don't want to judge that either.

But there is a difference between being suicidal at 20 or 60. When you are 20 you can decide whether you want to die or whether you want to do something with your life. At 60 you can decide whether you want to die now or a little later. That is a fundamentally different decision. I guess that's why old suicidals are often more determined and less desperate.

 

[elfgyoza]

Everyone on this forum has their reasons for being suicidal and I don't want to judge that either.

But there is a difference between being suicidal at 20 or 60. When you are 20 you can decide whether you want to die or whether you want to do something with your life. At 60 you can decide whether you want to die now or a little later. That is a fundamentally different decision. I guess that's why old suicidals are often more determined and less desperate.

What's the difference between a 20 and 60 year old if everyone will die anyway? I'm sorry if this comes across as argumentative, I just don't see why an adult's age matters here. I personally think that life has no inherent meaning or value, so what's the point in staying for ~ 60 more years (life expectancy of 80) if nothing matters?

 

[NatureHermit921]

What's the difference between a 20 and 60 year old if everyone will die anyway? I'm sorry if this comes across as argumentative, I just don't see why an adult's age matters here. I personally think that life has no inherent meaning or value, so what's the point in staying for ~ 60 more years (life expectancy of 80) if nothing matters?

Consider that you can potentially "do more stuff" in xyz years and that you could earn more life experience. It makes sense why it seems more acceptable in general to ctb the older you get. Also the common argument about "you have your whole life ahead of you!" comes to mind.
Dosent make alot of sense to me though.

 

[voyager (D)]

What's the difference between a 20 and 60 year old if everyone will die anyway? I'm sorry if this comes across as argumentative, I just don't see why an adult's age matters here. I personally think that life has no inherent meaning or value, so what's the point in staying for ~ 60 more years (life expectancy of 80) if nothing matters?

It's my experience. I was suicidal when I was 19. Every now and then there was hope for something new. That hope diminished over the years until there was nothing left of it.

 

[SipSop]

I feel now is my time.
I wish, I lived more and better but I had all the good general experiences a human can have. And I must fulfill my ambition and then hopefully kill myself before they "save me".

 

[Amumu]

life has no inherent meaning or value

No. Don't you love anyone on earth ? If you love some people on earth, do you think their lives have no value? Think about it.

 

[Life_and_Death]

it totally depends. and this is an example i use. if someone is (we'll use the same age) 21 and they just lost their job or had a break up and this is literally their only problem in life then no, they shouldnt commit suicide. but if its someone like me thats suffering from so much anxiety they literally cant do anything anymore, ptsd/cptsd where even though on the outside they are fine they are being mentally abused 24/7 by themselves in such a real way it can pass as physical/sexual abuse even though its not currently happening, bpd emotional problems,(pusdeuo)hallucinations you cant go outside because something might attack you, paranoia someone must be following me they are going to hurt me is a constant thought, dissociation you get to live inside yourself while the world goes on around you, you get to live inside with your thoughts, with your bpd, your ptsd, your hallucinations, your paranoia, your anxiety//selfhatred because you just know that you can do that there was no reason not to.

so yeah depending on the circumstances i dont see why someone younger should be denied suicide just because things can "get better" even my own therapist said that it doesnt get better you just cope.

 

[elfgyoza]

No. Don't you love anyone on earth ? If you love some people on earth, do you think their lives have no value? Think about it.

Difficult question. Of course there are people I care about but in the grand scheme of things, I can't say with 100% certainty that we all have value. None of us will be remembered in a few generations anyway.
One of my reasons to ctb is because of how much of a shitty person I am, I barely have any cognitive empathy, which might be why I think this way

 

[Amumu]

Difficult question. Of course there are people I care about but in the grand scheme of things, I can't say with 100% certainty that we all have value. None of us will be remembered in a few generations anyway.
One of my reasons to ctb is because of how much of a shitty person I am, I barely have any cognitive empathy, which might be why I think this way

You care about people so you have cognitive empathy, that's it
Most of us have extremely low self-esteem here as well

 

[262653]

I've played chess as a kid against my grandpa, I played chess as an adult against someone who was said to be a chess master and maybe he was, judging by how well he played. The common thing about playing against a more skilled opponent is that I often realize my mistakes when it's too late.

How do I explain it... OK, since I can't come up with anything better for now, here's a crude example: seeing a snake in the grass. It's seems more appropriate because in a figurative way it means "a deceitful person".
Let's say, there's a guy in the forest. A guy hears the rustling in the grass, turns his eyes to the source of the sound, and sees something resembling a snake. The key is something, it's not clear whether what he sees is an actual snake, in one meter before him. Let's say, there are two options:
1) percieve as a danger and react, by fighting, fleeing, screaming, ceasing movement, and suchlike
2) examine that something the guy sees, to identify whether it's an actual snake, percieve as danger and react only when the snake is identified
Now, let's say, the guy (G1) has vampire-reflexes, superlative eyesight and is able to process information very fast (high processing speed). These qualities allows the G1 to to identify the danger fast enough (if it's the danger) before it strikes.
The same situation, another guy. This guy (G2) has slow reflexes, poor eyesight, low processing speed. These qualities are low enough that G2 is not capable to discern fast enough (to avoid the bite) whether what he sees is indeed a snake. Because of that, G2 has to rely on option 1, which is to take the something as dangerous and react to it.

Now back to the thread. In parallel to my example, what I think you're doing is encouraging everyone to choose the second option, or to not judge those who seem to hold the pro-life stance in a sense that such stance denies/invalidates choice. The people on this forum lie on the G1-G2 spectrum, and in this thread, GoodPersonEffed represents to me a radical example of G2 (relatively to everyone who has commented here so far).

The problem I see here is that the closer a person to G1, the more "dangerous" would it be for such person to use personal knowledge, intelligence, reasoning, self-awareness, perception, etc., to "detect snakes", to examine thoroughly what is said on the forum, to give everyone the benefit of doubt, to not judge others based on something other than the aforementioned mental faculties.

 

[elfgyoza]

You care about people so you have cognitive empathy, that's it
Most of us have extremely low self-esteem here as well

I'm autistic. I think it can be fairly common for us to have low cognitive but high affective empathy. I can pick up on people's emotions subconsciously but I don't always understand them and I'm not good at putting myself in their shoes. I have a difficulty in recognising my own emotions and it's really taxing to fake emotions or interest in people all the time. I know most of us here have low self esteem, I've just recognised how toxic I am in social situations

 

[sadbadpsychogirl]

i'm not trying to sound pro life or anything but i do believe people in their teens and twenties should wait for a little bit just to see if they feel the same way by the time they're about 30. of course there are exceptions, thats just my opinion

 

[Amumu]

i'm not trying to sound pro life or anything but i do believe people in their teens and twenties should wait for a little bit just to see if they feel the same way by the time they're about 30. of course there are exceptions, thats just my opinion

And your opinion is understandable, even though 30 is a little bit high.
I'm going to be flamed by younger members here, but apart from exceptions,
I wouldn't enable a teenager (and in my opinion we're teenagers from 13 to 20 or 21) to ctb.

I'm sure there are parents here who understand that. I'm not one of them btw.