Suicide should be available to everyone

One of the biggest problems of the modern era is hyperbole. At one time, the word ‘terrorism’ was restricted to real acts of terror … the FLQ in Canada, the IRA in the UK. But gradually, less violent and threatening acts were labeled as terrorism. Now we are at the point where some people use the word for even minor inconveniences and disagreements. For example, a proposal to reduce social security payments would be called ‘terrorism’. Right?
That’s how you use the word.

(Hmm, smells like Aidan in here)

Ecmandu, you’d probably benefit from spending some quiet alone time at a nice quiet beach house. Just you, the sea and the birds. Under these conditions, maybe after a year or so your brain will reset itself. But before then, you should not be subjected to stimulus of any kind; I don’t think your brain can handle it well right now.

Women tell me quite often that they like me more than their boyfriends…

It’s called “surrogate gay best friend for life” or the friend zone"

Guys don’t do that to women, men are actually sexually attracted to the spirit of the person.

They subjectify more than women

I’m going to do a couple cross postings because people in large numbers are talking about banning me…

Consider it self defense

viewtopic.php?p=2645025#p2645025

I don’t disagree with any of this. But Ecmandu’s increased volume of crazy posts weren’t on my section of the forums so I don’t care. If I drive him out of Society and Politics often enough, maybe he’ll become somebody else’s problem and then he will get banned.

The appearance of personal issues between me and him is precisely why I merely boot his ass out of my section of the forums instead of banning him forever, which I could with the click of a button at any time, and I highly doubt I would get significant blowback. Hell, I have banned him before for a week or two at a time. He’s mostly kept his idiocy to the pro-idiocy sections of the forums until recently.

An obligatory “not all mentally Ill people are ill in a way that makes them bad for forum discussions” goes here, but in general I get what you mean and I don’t disagree.

Men objectify more than women. Women aren’t bothered by fugly dudes but men are bothered by fugly women. Women do seem more unfair and evil in the dating game but I’m still trying to figure out the exact equation as to why.

No women more than men. Humane suicide is the most fundamental right… It’s the ultimate subjectify cation of any being in existence.

The reason we don’t have it, is because women derive self esteem from abusing men (their children too) - “I’m so important because I’m a mom, moms work harder than anyone”. Bullshit!!

The only reason you’re still a mom bragging on yourself is because men just want to get laid, and you have a blackmail system that makes men also not make humane suicide available to everyone.

I’m living proof that women objectify more than men do.

If anything, you should be a 2nd amendment activist and laughing gas activist. 12 gauge shotgun and laughing gas are the only humane ways of suicide, both items too heavily regulated to be put in the hands of the suicidal.

In my eyes, women don’t objectify you. Superficially, you are a lumberjack who lives in a log cabin, but on the inside they subjectively view you as a surrogate friend. I do not think women are so stupid to the point where they are unaware you have lust for them.

The smaller the gauge, the bigger the barrel…

10 gauge is better …

Women know all guys lust after them

I disagree with the whole ban-people-with-mental-illnesses thing. As long as I’ve known it, ILP has been frequented by people who are diagnosably mentally ill. I don’t think we’ve ever had a time since I’ve been here (since I first found ILP, not just in my tenure janitor-in-chief) that there wasn’t at least one openly mentally ill staff member. And the boards have always had a colorful set. The very field of philosophy is full of kooks. Normal people don’t ask these questions.

But I also basically disagree with the milder form: banning people just because they’re bad at philosophy or messageboarding. If people are actually disruptive, I’m on board, and I’m open to the idea of banning them, even permanently. If someone proves themselves unable to participate in a non-disruptive way, they shouldn’t be here. But that’s different from people who are just not very good at what they’re trying to do. I favor generally a standard of good faith over quality, with the caveat that sufficient problems of quality can trump all the good faith in the world.

But, to take Mr. Ecmandu as our present example: while I think most of Ecmandu’s posts are devoid of content, and most of his ideas fall into the category of “not even wrong”, he has produced at least one philosophically interesting idea, namely the intuition pump of looking at a world where suicide is cheap, easy, and painless for anyone who wants it, and asking what that would would have to look like so that no one was committing suicide. I think that’s an interesting thought, and one which I’d have missed if we banned him when it became obvious that he’s technically mentally ill and isn’t great at normal participation in discussions.

:open_mouth:

Are we going to see any changes at all to the site moderation?

Carleas,

Actually my greatest idea is that the biggest problem in existence is: overlapping desires and mutually exclusive desires; that if we can solve that one problem, we solve every problem ever, forever and ever.

My suicide ideas are about meaning (make suicide cheaper, easier, painless … Whatever gets the rate to zero, is inherent meaning)

These two ideas are connected threads that speak to the core of everyone’s existence.

That idea seems less novel to me. It’s discussed all the time in policy circles, under terms like “tradeoffs”.

I stand by it. Have you never had someone roll their eyes and say “come on, man” in an exasperated tone as you slide into the third hour of Socratic inquiry?

Do you actually want change? Removing Ec’s thread’s was a change, and here we are.

No changes in the foreseeable future. Good to know.

My concept isn’t game theory Carleas.

I literally want two men to exclusively have the same wife; I literally want lesbians to consent to sex with men while still always being lesbians.

I’m on a whole different plane here…

I’m not working with game theoretical constructs from lower plane beings in flat world

I edited my last message for clarity

In a spirit of sincere good will and constructive criticism, I’ll tell you how I interpret that post, and you can consider or dismiss what I have to say as you choose.

You aren’t trying to present an idea that’s in any way accessible to your audience. You’re presenting a crackpot-ish idea, seemingly with no awareness of how crackpot-ish it sounds. Then you’re effectively demanding that if anyone wants to understand it, they need to get on your level because you’ll make no effort to explain it in a way that’s accessible to anyone who isn’t already inside your head. And you reject a major body of work on the kind of problem you seem to be concerned with, further indication that normal means of inquiry will be fruitless. That obstinacy reads, most charitably, as showing off, and least charitably as being full of shit.

Reading this, I think to myself, What are the odds this random guy on the internet has anything worth exploring? And what are the odds that some random guy on the internet who won’t or can’t clearly and directly explain his position is nonetheless sitting on some deep philosophical insight? And, assuming this is such a guy, what are the odds that the worth of this thing is so great that it offsets what will likely be an arduous slog through this random internet guy’s back catalog, and perhaps months of carefully crafting questions like answers to a zen koan in order to get a little more color on what the hell random internet guy is talking about?

And I conclude that all those odds are just about zero, and, while you might have something, I have effectively no reason to expect that you have something, and yet less reason to think I can get you to explain it. I have no reason to risk wasting my time, when there’s already a limitless supply of other reading material that’s pre-vetted by people whose opinions I trust and, moreover, that is presented with the aim of explaining the ideas its advocating.

And then I stop reading your post. I know that your post isn’t meant to be a full exposition of the idea, but if you’d linked to a full exposition of your idea I would very likely not follow it.

That’s not my issue carleas…

The thing about solving this for philosophic zombie worlds using behavioral signatures and variations instead of consciousness signatures is the problem of lots of beings who understand this is the biggest problem.

If you aren’t even smart enough to know this is the biggest problem, all that means, is that we’re doing the work for you… So just sit back while it’s being done.

Ecmandu is obviously crazier than a shithouse rat, but this particular pattern isn’t a sign of mental illness, I find. It seems to me that when people do philosophy essentially alone, their philosophizing often takes the form of developing private jargon to describe their biases with, and not actually an investigation of anything. When somebody continues like this for a while, their eventual confrontations with the outside world take the form of showing off all the complicated sentences they have learned to construct, and insisting that anybody who doesn’t see them as deep or meaningful just isn’t on their level. I could name a lot of people here who seem to follow this general pattern, and the common thread among them is that they haven’t had a lot of exposure to philosophy outside off their own head.