James

[font=franklin gothic medium]I know others have said this, but for me the blatant hypocrisy of killing someone in the name of being pro-life is utterly astounding. It kind of reminds me of a phrase in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Extreme pro-life groups often seem to be saying "terminating a life is always inexcuseable, regardless of circumstances - oh, unless those circumstances involve our agenda." And unfortunately this is the problem with any extreme group really - they have a set of rules that everyone except themselves must live by.[/font]

[quote name='Magus']I don't understand the whole Wii Motion thing at all. It just look like what the Wii controller was doing all along. Can someone explain the purpose of it? [/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]You will notice the difference when you have the chance to give it a try. :catgirl: Basically, the Wii Remote contains an accelerometer that detects your movement and while it works reasonably well, it doesn't really come close to giving you full 1:1 movement. Some games really demonstrate this clearly, especially where there can be some lag or not enough sensitivity. MotionPlus basically adds an additional sensor which allows the Wii Remote to track your movements far more accurately. A lot of MotionPlus games contain a basic calibration tool as well, so that each time you are doing a different motion, you get as close to 1:1 feedback as possible. I mean if you look at something like WiiSports Tennis, the motion is fairly good, but it's not close to 1:1 really. Sometimes you'll swing when you don't want to, or you'll half-swing when you want to full-swing, etc. Often it just means that a swing is a swing and there's no degree of force detected. MotionPlus is basically a lot more like playing a real game of tennis, because it can pick up all of the smaller motions and movements - including things like force and speed. My thinking is that quite a few games just won't be possible without MotionPlus (including the new Zelda). So hopefully we'll see it supported heavily and hopefully quite a few games will come with it packed in.[/font] [quote]Project Natal would be full of mundane, casual gimmick-games if it worked, but it won't, as evidenced by common sense and the spazzing avatar and Breakout chick from the presentation. Milo is smarterchild for the 360. Just like the Wii, Natal has massive potential that will go utterly untapped by developers. Label me a cynic, but just remember two years from now: I called it.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Apparently Natal does work as demonstrated. The press experience has been fairly brief so far, but even games with very little modification have been able to take advantage of the tool. Whether or not this translates into strong developer support (or even general popularity for the product) remains to be seen, but so far the actual performance seems to be well on track. Nintendo has demonstrated that this type of approach to games isn't gimmicky, but I do think Microsoft has to be careful about confusing its audience with this product. At least with Wii, everything is more or less built around the Wii Remote - Xbox 360 is a different beast. What I'd really like to see is a new Xbox 360 (entirely new case design, much smaller package, slot-loading drive) that comes with one 360 controller and a "Natal" unit. May not be realistic, but I'm guessing that MS would rather do something like this instead of launching an entirely new platform from scratch.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]John: I was so blown away by the sarcasm that I nearly fell off my chair. Well done. Alla: Meh. Thread closures should always be avoided unless they're really necessary. Everyone else: I hope that this change makes life a bit easier, especially when it comes to posting videos. In the past the character limit didn't matter because we never had videos or anything like that - so it was kind of irrelevant. The videos can add a lot to the site, so I'm happy that people can include them a lot more easily now. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I've seen quite a few articles like this before and I think they are really sad. I just can't imagine living in a country where there's no significant safety net, in terms of basic medical care (especially in emergency cases). To give some context, I should probably try to explain how this basically works in Australia. Here we have a similar system to many other countries - Medicare. Our Medicare system is essentially a public system. If you visit a GP who bulk bills (not all do), then your visits are paid for by Medicare. If you are prescribed medication, then you [i]do[/i] have to pay for it, but high-cost medications are subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). In terms of hospitals, Australia has both public and private hospitals. Public hospitals are funded by the relevant State health departments, so they are literally just public facilities. If you present to a public hospital (whether in emergency or for other necessary operations), your costs are covered by Medicare up to a point. Medicare does have a limit that kicks in, so, say your operation costs $10,000 all up. Medicare might pay $8,500 and there will be a "gap" that you will have to pay yourself. I'm not sure exactly where the Medicare ceiling sits, but it's reasonably high, so most operations are simply covered without the patient needing to pay a cent. In our public system, you still have quite a bit of flexibility depending on the hospital. So you can generally still choose your own doctor/surgeon and sometimes you can also choose a room just for yourself (although this depends on availability). Then there is the private system. Some GP offices do not bulk bill - they charge private fees. This is really the choice of the individual practice. Some practices even do both - they will either charge privately [i]or[/i] bulk bill depending on the circumstances. There are also private hospitals in Australia. These hospitals can do some treatment via the Medicare system I think (i.e. if you present to their emergency department because they're the closest hospital). In other words, an ambulance will take you to the nearest emergency room and they won't be concerned about whether or not it's public. All emergency rooms are obligated to treat the cases that come to them. In the private hospital system you have a bit more flexibility simply because you're paying privately (usually through private health insurance). You can tend to get your own room and you are usually guaranteed various options (choice of surgeon etc). Also in some cases waiting lists are a bit shorter, although they are certainly not excessively long in the public system. In terms of private health insurance here... it's not quite the same as in America. For instance, I have private health cover. I choose to have it because it takes a bit of pressure off the public system and (at the moment) I can afford it. It also allows me to get rebates for various things (like I can spend up to $500 per year on glasses for instance). However, let's say I need to have that $10,000 operation. I can do this privately and it'll be covered. But what if, for some reason, I want to use a public hospital? In that case, Medicare would pay up to its ceiling (say $8,500) and my private insurance would then kick in and pay the "gap". So I'd be left with no bill. In this way public and private complement each other in Australia. I've heard a lot of arguments from Americans that somehow our system is doable either a) because of our smaller population or b) because we're happy to waste money on the system and it probably costs us a fortune. Well, wrong on both counts. Population size is really irrelevant, because everything is proportional - if you have more patients, you also inherently have a bigger tax base with which to fund them. Secondly, my understanding is that our Medicare system is one of the few on Earth that is financially viable. This is because there is a system of balances involved with how it is funded and how it pays out. In Australia, everybody who works pays a Medicare levy as part of their income tax. I think that for people under a certain wage it's $1 per day (so $365 per year). If you hit a certain income level, the levy doubles. As I mentioned, this comes out of your income tax component. So it's not really like an extra dip of money that they take out. And secondly, nobody really minds this simply because all Australians draw on it regularly. If I visit a GP tomorrow and they bulk bill, I don't have to pay - because my income tax is already helping to fund the system. There are a million other things I could mention - and I'm sorry for rambling on so long - but I felt I had to explain this a bit, so that other people can understand where I'm coming from. To me - and I'm sure to most Australians - the idea of people simply not accepting necessary treatment because they don't have insurance is just... unfathomable. It sounds like something from the dark ages, in all honesty. Plus it doesn't make sense even for economic reasons. If people are discouraged from treating themselves at an earlier stage, they will tend to only present at emergency rooms later on with far more severe conditions. The end result? Costs go up substantially - even health insurers would face higher costs, because they would now have to deal with a situation that wouldn't have happened if the patient had been able to get proper care earlier on. So, please feel free not to read through my rambling if it bores you or something... but for those interested, it may give you some insight into why various people just don't understand these types of news stories. Edit: I nearly forgot, there are two big exceptions to the rules above. One is dental - as far as I know, Medicare does not cover any dentistry work. If you have private insurance you can get that cover, but otherwise you have to pay. Many dentists in Australia do not require up-front payment, however, and allow customers to enter into a payment plan. And two, cosmetic surgery (also known as "elective surgery") is not covered under Medicare. This is paid privately depending on your private health cover arrangements. So there are definitely exceptions and our system does not go nearly as far as some European systems in terms of covering everything (which is probably partly why it's viable).[/font] :catgirl:

[font=franklin gothic medium]OB tends to move at a glacial pace these days anyway, but things tend to pick up over summer when people are on break. Most members here tend to be pretty busy with classes, exams and work during other parts of the year.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]So this issue has now been sorted out once and for all - minimum characters per post has been removed completely. Really, the minimum character requirement was getting smaller and smaller all the time anyway. I don't think it's even relevant anymore, especially now that a lot of people post images or video responses to things.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]My characters are: Aetheran Mandrashee Eva Crowley Zahir Kahn At least those are the main characters I use. You can add any and they'll all be added.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Good good. Well if you see me in the game, be sure to send a whisper. I actually never got very far in Factions, it was my least favourite game. But I'm re-doubling my efforts there, haha.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Does anyone still play this? I got Eye of the North only a few weeks ago and I've been loving it. The fact that I can also now edit my characters' styles/names makes a big difference. I've been getting back into the game and I've now been playing it again for several weeks solid. I'm even going back into Prophecies and doing stuff I hadn't done yet. Also I never finished Factions and Nightfall... now I'm working on that. I'm also experimenting with some new character builds that I was never interested in before. It's a shame I never see Otakuites on anymore. [/font]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I forgot to mention how much I found Nero to be an underwhelming villain because I kept forgetting all about him.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Totally agree. I was sort of hopeful that the villain in this movie would match the overall quality and freshness of the movie itself... but nope. It's sort of interesting that the movie managed to be good despite the villain, rather than because of him. For me, Nero was probably the most negative part of the whole experience, frankly.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think the CIA misled Pelosi. It is her [i]job[/i] to make sure she understands what she is approving, especially as Speaker of the House. Funny how when things hit the fan, people start scattering - like cockroaches diving under furniture to avoid the light. What annoys me most is the hypocrisy of many Democrats, who condemn the Bush Administration but who supported them in many aspects of their policy. Whether they were right or wrong is almost irrelevant - what bothers me most is the transparent lack of conviction inherent in many politicians.[/font]

[quote]ALL COUNTRIES TORTURE.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]On what basis do you make that claim? Thanks for single-handedly lumping all first world countries in with the likes of China and Saudi Arabia (two utterly backward nations with regard to human rights standards).[/font] [quote]Speaking of which - why do you question the legitimacy of the photos, Alla? It doesn't seem extraordinary after the disgusting and ridiculous photos from Abu Ghraib were released.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]While I may not agree with waterboarding at all, I don't think you can necessarily link Abu Ghraib to Government policy. I can see a pretty wide gap between the two. You may have recently read the CIA documents that were released relating to coercive interrogation techniques - things like waterboarding, prolonged standing and sleep deprivation were all mentioned. And when it comes to this sort of thing, I do personally think that the degree of severity is not irrelevant. As far as the photos go, I really don't know what good it would do to release them. For one thing, they could compromise the identity of existing or former CIA agents, which is a big no-no. I agree with Obama that the Administration probably doesn't want to see prosecutions of actual CIA interrogators, as this would create several major compromises. However... if people really want to go after those who are responsible for this sort of action, they need to look at the people who were responsible for legislating/approving such procedures in the first place. And those people are many, inside and outside the former Administration - including both Democrats and Republicans alike.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I can't see the logic in further taxing people who are already generally fairly tight on money as it is. Doesn't make much sense to me. In Australia most goods and services attract a flat 10% tax (other than fresh food and certain specific things, which are tax free). As a result, whenever you purchase almost anything you are paying sales tax. College students still have to buy food and books and all sorts of other things - they still pay into the economy in one form or another. Adding an arbitrary tax doesn't seem logical, especially if you're paying a tax for a property that you are renting (i.e. you shouldn't be paying land rates or whatever if you aren't the owner - those sorts of charges are generally built into the rent in some way). Even students who receive some sort of welfare aid are still inherently putting much of that back into Government coffers whenever they spend the money. So on the surface of it, this definitely seems like a weird idea.[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Tahoma"]No, if you read what my mom said in her post, the first artifact is a crystal with a xear symbol on it. So the ship can't be the artifact. So my guess is either Rachmaninoff or P.J. McKrafty will be posting about retrieving it in their next post. o_O I need to post as well. I've just been really busy with homework and lately, it has left me with little spare time to do stuff. I do plan on posting this weekend though. [B]EDIT:[/B] And I have posted. It's just a little bit to indicate that the girls are joining Gustave for breakfast. Either one of you can feel free to skip straight to the fashion show, or whatever you wish to post. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Oh ok, I've had conflicting stories about what the artifact actually is. I think different people had made different decisions about that. In any case, it matters not - the sooner the artifact is retrieved the better, otherwise we'll risk the story stagnating too much I think. I'll catch up on the latest posts. :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think the fact that the relationship between [spoiler]Spock and Uhura[/spoiler] mirrored the relationship between [spoiler]Spock's mother and father[/spoiler] gave the whole thing some weight. This is especially true when [spoiler]Spock's father said that he married his mother because "he loved her" and not just because it was logical. I also liked that Uhura seemed to be the only person who felt so terribly for Spock's loss... after all, losing almost all of your race in one single moment would have to be one of the most horrific things someone could go through.[/spoiler][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think we're kind of stuck on this current Landmark - if the first artifact was actually the ship, then we can probably move on. We may need to look at another Landmark, either the next artifact location or something else. I will see if I can get a post up today or tomorrow - admittedly I'm having trouble working out where to take this. I hope we can get over this hump because we were off to a great start. [b]Edit:[/b] Also, I liked your post Malkav. Very interesting twist. I wonder what will happen now that the Anovans and Czenovians are together, with Natalia in control of this ship...[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This movie just confirmed for me that JJ Abrams is fast becoming one of my favourite directors. I think he almost pulled off the impossible here - to re-imagine the original Star Trek in a way that actually dovetailed beautifully with the original series while also being something completely new. Even the casting choices were great - I rarely sat there comparing these actors to their 60's counterparts. I would say that the Star Trek films have desperately needed a massive shake-up like this anyway. After Insurrection and Nemesis (neither of which I liked and both of which I felt just didn't do any justice to the Star Trek concept), I'm relieved that we've got something that breathes some life into the ageing series. One thing I particularly liked about this film was the design - it was retro 60's but with a modern twist. The high-intensity white lighting throughout the Enterprise's bridge, for instance, worked really well (there are even times where the light blooms block out characters for a moment because of their intensity - somehow it feels very suitable). I also liked that Abrams wasn't afraid to make substantial changes to some of the characters [spoiler]like the relationship between Spock and...Uhura? I have no idea how to spell her name.[/spoiler] Far from being jarring, I actually thought that worked beautifully. Not to mention it gave added depth to a character that rarely had it in the past (and I'm not referring to Spock). So, yeah, I was impressed with Star Trek. Beautiful visuals, some excellent shots, wonderful actors and even a fun yet completely logical (haha) cameo. Great stuff.[/font]

[quote name='Nomurah!'][SIZE="1"][COLOR="hotPink"]This just made me think, why isn't there a thread on OB... about nothing but sex? I'm talking condoms, positions, toys... the works. We should get Ikillion on that right away. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]You really want swap sex aid stories on OB of all places? See Sara's signature for why even entertaining this idea is lame.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's interesting you mention the difference in milk. I've had friends who went to the US say that they didn't like the milk there because it was very heavy as compared to what we drink. Interesting. As far as breakfast goes, I tend to like either cereal or toast and orange juice. So, pretty basic stuff I guess. I can't personally understand eating pastries and very heavy foods in the morning. Having said that, I've [i]occasionally[/i] had a hot breakfast (as in, bacon and sausages and stuff like that), but I tend to only do that if I'm at a hotel or going out to a cafe/restaurant for breakfast. It's not something I'd really do at home (and definitely not every day).[/font]

[quote]I think an important issue that hasn't been addressed (from what I've skimmed of these tangled mounds of text) is why do all of you think everyone should be alive for as long as they can maintain happiness? If someone wants to end their life, why do you say, "They have issues"? What is it about being alive that's better than being dead, and why should we feel the need to rescue someone from the "mistake" of not wanting to live anymore?[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think this actually has been addressed on some level by the "mangled mounds of text" (which don't appear so mangled if read). The key argument has been that people who wish to end their life are "cowardly", as if that statement represents a summation of the entire issue. I have been pointing out that people end their lives for a multitude of reasons (not just suicide due to depression, but also euthanasia as a result of terminal illness, etc). So in this way I agree that we can't cast off an entire group of people by implying simply that "they have issues" when there's obviously more to it than that. In terms of your specific question about why is it better to be alive than to be dead...well, I almost think that is also a kind of simplistic question. Apart from the fact that human beings have an inherent survival instinct (fight or flight being a classic example of that), it seems to me that generally people who make a choice to end their life do so mostly because they are motivated by some sort of negative - i.e. depression, abuse, terminal illness, etc... I can't imagine someone who is having a completely "happy" or "comfortable" life simply saying "Oh I don't know what's so good about all this [i]living[/i], I might as well kill myself." The only real exception I can think of might be that people may commit suicide for religious reasons. In other words, they may be living a happy/fulfilling life and they may not be depressed, but they may feel compelled to commit suicide for some reason based on faith. There could easily be other examples, but I can't think of any. I'm sure they are probably out there though. :catgirl:[/font] [quote]Simply an act of cowardice? Not once did I say it was only that.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Sorry Beth, I wasn't referring to your comments specifically. I was referring to Allamorph's comments (and some of the general sentiments that have flowed from those).[/font] [quote]If anything I think it is cowardice that is often misunderstood. I've been there, I know what it is and it's terrifying. You're taking that single word as if it's the only thing I would say on the matter and it's not, it's only one part of it. I don't know how to be any more clear than that. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Oh, no, I'm not implying that it's the only thing you'd say on the matter. I can see why you'd think that though, given what I'd quoted in the first instance. I'm saying that "cowardice" is largely irrelevant to this entire issue, as least in the context it has been used so far. And primarily I think Allamorph has used the word incorrectly - it has amplified what I view as his oversimplification and misunderstanding of suicide as a topic. I think what you yourself have expressed largely supports what I've been saying - that nobody can define all cases of suicide as simply "cowardice". Suicide is a complicated issue and making generalizations about it is inappropriate (again, I don't see you doing this, but I'm responding to that general point of view).[/font] [quote]Anyway, even with assisted suicide it's important to remember that ninety percent of the people who kill themselves, actually have a diagnosable and treatable psychiatric illnesses; like depression, bipolar depression, etc. Plus depression has a high success rate for treatment. Between eighty to ninety percent respond well to treatment. And nearly all of them get some relief from their symptoms.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Bingo. In the same way that you might not call a paranoid schizophrenic "mean", you would probably also not call a depressed person "cowardly". Far from being about political correctness, it's about simply using the incorrect word.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The scary part is, I don't think Glenn Beck is [i]intended[/i] to be a parody. I've never watched a full episode, but I've seen a few segments that make me think this guy is just another Hannity but with a different spin. He adds a bit of comedy (if it can be called that), but it often comes across as a really lame attempt to mimmick The Daily Show. Then again, Red Eye also seems to fit into that category for me. It tries to add some coolness or edge to Fox News, but it sort of comes across like the raving granny on YouTube - trying to be cool and hip, but in reality people are just pointing and laughing at their lame attempt to draw in the young crowd. ... :catgirl:[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Still not quite sure what to post, but I will work something out. I may do a post with Edith to give Aaryanna time for another go. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I had a fun weekend... caught up with Uni friends for the first time in ages. And I spent most of the day in the city yesterday (and came away with a new coat... >_>; ) So the weekend was pretty good. I also saw Wolverine... it was [i]okay[/i]. I liked it, but not as much as the main series. (And I suffer from hay fever myself... it seems to flare up at the most random times too. Ugh.)[/font]

[quote]It's a fine distinction, one that a lot of you seem to fail to grasp, but living for years with mental duress of some kind isn't cowardly. It is only that moment when one gives up and takes their own life. It doesn't make them a bad person, it means they reached their breaking point. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think we grasp this, but we think cowardly is entirely the wrong word. If you look at the actual definition, this becomes clearer:[/font] [quote=Definition of Cowardly]1. lacking courage; contemptibly timid. 2. characteristic of or befitting a coward; despicably mean, covert, or unprincipled: a cowardly attack on a weak, defenseless man. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Now you may say that someone who commits suicide is lacking in courage, but even that I don't entirely agree with. Often I'd actually argue that the act of physically killing yourself is probably quite a resolute action that requires significant "courage" to follow through. This is especially true given that killing one's self is contrary to inherent human instinct - you'd be surprised what people automatically/unconsciously do to save their own lives in a crisis situation, for example. To kill yourself you aren't simply committing an act based on an emotion - like cowardice - but rather you are able to overcome your inherent survival instinct. This denotes a deeper psychological issue rather than simple "cowardice". When you look at the majority of the word's definition, though, I think it becomes clear why it isn't the right word in terms of how it's been used so far. Allamorph's use of cowardly does not simply imply lack of courage. He talks about not "condoning" a cowardly act and people being remembered as "cowards". This tone directly refers (intended or not) to cowardly as being contemptibly timid, weak, etc... in other words, there's no acknowledgement that truly suicidal people tend to actually have real clinical problems that must be dealt with. Depression, for example, was often known as being "sad" or "upset" or "weak". In reality it is a very real physiological condition - it requires counselling and clinical treatment. Given that many people who commit suicide do also suffer from depression, this kind of thinking is even more important. Reducing a serious psychological state to "cowardice" or "being cowardly" singlehandedly dismisses these elements.[/font]

[quote]I begin to feel that words like "oversimplify" and "problem" are being tossed around altogether too freely. With the former, how one can break an issue down past its base components is a concept I can't quite fathom. So instead of repeating that I am "oversimplifying", please tell me what that means.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I will try to clarify. Earlier on, you said this:[/font] [quote name='Allamorph][i']As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can't imagine the hopelessness and despair that would drive a person to suicide. But I cannot excuse, I cannot condone the cowardice that makes the final decision.[/i][/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You then said it was the easy way out. My underlying point is that the application of these labels to suicide is an obvious oversimplification of the problem. In your estimation, suicide in general is representative of cowardice and/or the easy way out. This comment excludes all other possibilities by its very nature and it inherently makes a simplistic value judgment about a very complex problem. Now, you also go on to say that each situation is different and you say you acknowledge the complexity of the problem. But then you say this:[/font] [quote]The circumstances make each case individual, meaning there can be no general solution as a whole but instead case-sensitive counseling. However, individual cases and circumstances do not automatically negate the same core motive.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]And this is contradictory. It's like saying that each case of murder is individual with different circumstances, but that the motive is the same for all cases. In other words, killing an intruder because they have a gun pointed at you (i.e. self-defense) is a different circumstance to killing a random child due to the thrill of it...yet the underlying motive is the same across the board? No. If we take into account different circumstances and individual issues relating to suicide, we must also be open to the reality that the underlying motive for suicide is regularly different. You've indicated this yourself by referring to cult suicides. If someone suicides because they believe - as a matter of faith - that this is something they should do for whatever reason (i.e. going to heaven, or because they have to leave the Earth or whatever), then clearly not all suicides involve cowardice as even a primary motivation.[/font] [quote]Although I hesitate to use the term "disorder" because doing so risks reducing perception of them to a clinical perspective. You can't be detached about things like this. (Which is partly why I'm being so adamant about my point.)[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]On the contrary, I think that the concept of applying a single over-arching label to suicide demonstrates detachment from the issue. As much as we want to sympathize with people, it's also important to identify what the causes of people's actions are. Obviously if someone is not actually suicidal (but perhaps if they have a different social disorder), they would need to be correctly diagnosed so that they could receive appropriate treatment.[/font] [quote]There is no probably about it. I can't accept many of the life decisions she's made. But that doesn't mean I have to be thinking about them every time I talk to her or think of her.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right, and that's fair enough. But we still do make a judgment about a person based on their actions, in one form or another. So you may be Vicky's friend, but you may also think that some of her life choices are immoral. This, in turn, implies a value judgment about one's morality, however small that may be. Nevertheless, my comments about "hate the sin, love the sinner" are really very general. It's a term that I've never liked, but is probably not really part of this thread.[/font] [quote]And therein lies the issue I have been driving at with this sequence of posts. I refuse to accept being comfortable with suicide. I refuse to accept that any of us have the right to sit around discussing suicide without fully comprehending its seriousness. I am met too often in my day to day life with people who are content to hold discourse on topics like these as if they were discussing Thomas Aquinas or Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is easy to say "suicide is terrible". You can forget you said it after twenty minutes.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not sure how many of us fall into this category, but I would suggest very few.[/font] [quote]And to be honest, those reactions came in exactly the manner I thought they would come. Because while we all want to agree that "suicide is bad", no one—no one—wants to risk appearing insensitive by stating an ugly truth. This mindset is so prevalent and so ingrained that even when one person is willing to take that step, they are instantly decried as judgmental and often close-minded. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think you have misinterpreted our objection to your description of suicide as "cowardice". Refer to my earlier comments in this post on why we might disagree with that term. But to add to that, I would just say, you assert that suicide being an act of cowardice is "an ugly truth". So equating suicide to cowardice is, for you, self-evident. However, this is not some kind of objective truth that others simply fail to see. Rather, I think others are pointing out that there are many possible motivations for acts of suicide - and that by simply defining suicide as being cowardice, you may be limiting yourself to a single perceived truth without necessarily understanding the wide breadth of motivations and associated issues.[/font] [quote]In this case, the distinction most people will miss when presented with the word Cowardice is one of state of being. A Deserter is one who deserts. A Murderer is one who murders. But a Suicidal (and what a clever little label that is) is one who is likely to attempt suicide. In other words, one who has not yet committed suicide. I cannot be brave by simply considering a brave action. Neither can I be a coward by considering a cowardly action. In order to be one or the other, I have to actually take action. Since a person can no longer be suicidal after they are dead, only those suicidal people who have already attempted suicide and failed fall under my statement.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]This goes without saying - I don't think anyone has misunderstood this. Obviously there's a difference (in specific definition) between a suicidal person and one who has already committed the act. If we did not understand that basic dichotomy, we would not be discussing multiple different related branches (i.e. euthanasia as opposed to different forms of suicide).[/font] [quote]And then again, even though Cowardice does define part of one's character, that definition is not permanent. So saying someone is cowardly and saying someone was cowardly are again two different statements. So while a lot of you will remain hung up on an ugly term and whether or not we have the right to "label", I instead desire to use such knowledge to help the people in question. I wish to focus on how to dissuade someone from becoming a coward because I do not want them remembered as one[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The first comment... you can probably predict what I'm going to say: [i]semantics[/i]. Whether someone is/was/will be cowardly is largely irrelevant. What matters - and what people are debating with you - is that you have defined the act of suicide as being an act of cowardice. This is the only point of real disagreement. As for the second comment...well, that's a little slippery. :catgirl: Instead of trying to take the high moral ground by saying that you won't get hung up on a word and will instead focus on how to help people (as if those who disagree with this are simply hung up on an ugly term), it might be better to try to understand what our objection is in the first place (and if that has not been clear so far, I hope it is now). I would say that you are getting hung up on terminology, whereas others are pointing out the incorrect use of that terminology and how it simply applies a value judgment rather than an objective truth.[/font] [quote]Why would anyone in their right mind encourage another to be a coward? Such people are vile.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]To answer this question (that is, if you're including euthanasia in your definition), I would just refer to what others have posted. There are a myriad of circumstances where people want to relieve their loved ones of suffering - and in those cases I would say that compassion rather than cowardice is involved. However, again, it depends whether you are incorporating euthanasia into your definition there. Of course euthanasia is still a form of suicide (whereby a person is responsible for their own death by their choice, with or without the help of others). Still, that's worth raising anyway.[/font] [quote]Addendum: Beware of confusing 'judgment' with 'bigotry'. A person who makes no judgments has no thoughts. Those who use such judgments to make themselves appear better or others worse are bigots, and only those.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Nobody is making this confusion. [i]Of course[/i] we all make judgments about many things - we do not need to be told that, it should hopefully be obvious to all. The point is not that you are making a judgment, but that you are making a [i]value judgment[/i] about an act and, by extension, the person who committed it. You are doing this without regard for their individual circumstances (i.e. by applying this one label to call cases no matter what). And that is really the crux of the argument.[/font] [quote]I guess at this point my question to all of you is, why are you so adamant against the word coward, cowardly, cowardice, etc? I'll tell you what I think of it, as someone who has been there, it is a form of cowardice.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]My latest post deals with this further, but... I don't think any of this should be mistaken for an attempt to be politically correct. The problem is that if you define all suicide as simply an act of cowardice and that you "want to stop people from becoming cowards", you are virtually making a laughing stock of the entire issue. Preventing suicide should not be about stopping people from becoming cowards (a value judgment), but instead about [i]preventing death[/i] and [i]assisting people with the root causes of their suicidal feelings[/i]. Being able to appreciate the complexities of suicide and being able to treat the causes rather than worry about someone being known as a coward is a major area of difference among many of the views we've seen in this thread.[/font] [quote]I was terrified of continuing and I'm not ashamed to look back and see that cowardice for what it was. It didn't make me less of a person, and obviously I got help and moved past it. But I sure as hell am not going to sugar coat it and pretend otherwise. The only thing I lacked back then was the knowledge on how to see past that fear, and the help from others who, as gently as possible, helped me see that those fears weren't as terrible as I thought.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Right - you lacked the tools to deal with your fear. In other words, your fear was not the beginning and end of suicidal thoughts - it was a symptom of other causes. Also, fear played a role in your case, but what about someone who is so psychologically damaged that they believe their life is worthless? Or they might have the distorted belief that others would prefer it if they were dead? It almost sounds childish, but for people with the relevant psychological problems... it is [i]real[/i]. To them it may not be an issue of fear or cowardice, but instead a purely functional decision borne of other emotions and for other reasons. For others it may be that they have difficulty coping with various elements of their life (due often to a myriad of causes - one suicidal person might be depressed, where another might be skitzophrenic, etc...) So the basic point (for me) is that the generalization that all acts of suicide are acts of cowardice and that all people who commit suicide are inherently cowards (whether at the time or at any stage) concerns me. It's a very limited definition and it doesn't imply any kind of understanding or grasp of the problem's complexity, at least on its own. Some things that have been said to qualify that definition have helped, but I think the definition itself is far from some kind of objective truth.[/font]