The suicide component of the gun debate

[patrice]

56. The definition of rational is not as absolute as we might pretend it is. There are always judgement

calls affected by a wide variety of "other" things.

My basic criteria is: is this a free person making a free decision. If we pretend those other factors impacting a decision are not there, we do not know the answer to that basic question. If those other factors are recognized and owned by those involved in a given situation, then the chances of a given decision being free, NOT coerced in in manner, are higher. Have you seen any of that research which describes how impulsive so much suicide is? Half an hour one way or the other and outcomes can be entirely different.

The reason all of that is important, beyond a given individual's right to life, is because the recognition of those other factors is what produces rational responses to the sorts of things that affect life and death FOR PRACTICALLY EVERYONE in one way or another. And it is also that awareness, that recognition, that identification of as much as possible that affects as many people as possible that makes invention/creative responses to problems possible. Without that potential, we continue down the path of not knowing that we don't know what, under what could be as yet unidentified circumstances, we may NEED, very significantly NEED, to know in order to survive and develop in the best ways possible for the most people possible.

And if none of that matters to you, perhaps you should consider, not only, why your terms for living are privileged beyond those of others who could be affected by the ways in which inventive adaptation are oppressed for the convenience of others, but also whether, when it comes down to it for you, your own decision is not an authentically free decision, but is instead the result of regressive losses that are systemically conserved because no one is looking beyond the easiest and cheapest answers.

Additionally, if you can ask that question about yourself, then perhaps you can extend it to asking whether there could be some point out there in time and circumstances in which it is significantly possible that a need for something, say, like a certain bit of engineering (chemical, software, materiel . . . whatever) vital needs that could have been met, if resources had been conserved, but the need is NOT met, because suicide facilitation killed off the roots that would have manifested what was needed, and because the need is not met our entire species becomes extinct, including all of your future loved ones. If it's all really only about convenience and costs, wouldn't it be better to just get it all over with now? Why stick around?

Again, you can say, so be it. That's your right, but you do not have the right to make that decision for others . . . unless you are claiming a privilege that I/we did not bestow upon you.