Quality of Life and Suicide

[kami]

"The US is much more religious than most of Europe."

um. no. furthermore, the actual worship in europe is very devout, whereas in america, as a whole, it is not.

Don't fucking generalize so much, take Sweden, we're one of the most secularized countries in the world. You can't take Sweden into the same generalization as for example Italy.

[kami]

Just because it is a long term problem doesn't make at any less cowardly. Suicide is taking your life because there is something causing you too much grief or pain. Rather than face that grief or pain head on, you take your life so you don't have to deal with it anymore. That sounds pretty damn cowardly to me.

How can it be cowardly if you're depressed, when you're depressed you lose touch with reality... you really need to read up on depression and suicide, that is such an ignorant opinion.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'd say that it does take courage to live through mental illness, but that doesn't mean to commit suicide is some particular lack of courage, and as has been mentioned, it is in some way couragous as well.  But Ace, the reason I think your comments are creul and inappropriate are because you don't understand those affected.

[Ace]

I probably understand it more than you guys would think. I was very close to someone who was depressed for a long time. "Clinically" depressed. From all that I have seen, it is something, given willpower, that you can overcome.  You are not forced to live with it, you can get out of it if you have the strength. Thus, for anyone for whom it gets so bad that they must kill themselves, it is an act of cowardice and a sign of total weakness.

All of us here have real problems and stresses we deal with everyday. We get through it because we know it is just something we have to do. Taking the easy way out is just that: an "easy" way to "solve" your problems by not facing them.

[kami]

I probably understand it more than you guys would think. I was very close to someone who was depressed for a long time. "Clinically" depressed. From all that I have seen, it is something, given willpower, that you can overcome.  You are not forced to live with it, you can get out of it if you have the strength. Thus, for anyone for whom it gets so bad that they must kill themselves, it is an act of cowardice and a sign of total weakness.

All of us here have real problems and stresses we deal with everyday. We get through it because we know it is just something we have to do. Taking the easy way out is just that: an "easy" way to "solve" your problems by not facing them.

Again I must say that that is a totally ignorant statement, being depressed means that you have little to no willpower, that's kind of what being depressed is all about. This is also why you need help to overcome it, sometimes you overcome it over time but it's just the nature of the sickness, it comes and passes even in it's 'heavier' forms. You being a friend to someone who was 'clinically' depressed, doesn't mean that you know everything or even anything about it.

Everyone is more or less stressed in this society and when you become depressed, you lose your grip. It's not about things being easy to solve or not, even lighter problems can lead to depression, someone living a perfectly normal and healthy life with no significant problems can become depressed in one form or another, again, it's the nature of the sickness.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

He maintains that suicide is an indication of quality of life.  

I've posed that question.  And yes, I think it is one of the indications of the quality of life.  

The US is much more religious than most of Europe.

The first thing you base your opinion on is a huge assumption.  I really wouldn't agree with that assumption.  What are you basing that off of?  First of all, Catholics, not Christians have that damnation point of view, and last stats I saw, Europe still had many many more catholics then America.  So where are you basing that.  Remember, this isn't about separation of church and state, but just about the public being spiritual.

The more religious someone is the more they would fear the damnation that comes with suicide acording to most Christian interpretation.  

As I just said, that's a very specific Catholic point of view.  Not Christian.  

They aren't killing themselves because they have a worse quality of life, they are killing themselves because they have some sort of issue and less holding them back from doing it.

Your next assumption is that the "some sort of issue" isn't an indicator of worse quality of life.  You seem to be using your conclusion to support your conclusion.  

Now add that to you saying they have less holding them back.  Well, maybe the less holding them back isn't their  fear of damnation, but maybe it's just not being happy with their lives?  I mean, we have plenty of non-christians and non-catholics here in America, are their suicide rates that much higher then the christians?

Now that's a number that would lend at least some credibility to your argument.  Most of our nations aren't built upon a church or faith, so if you think that's what it is, look at the USA, and see if there is a great, huge difference between christians and other faiths (or non-faith) groups per capita.  That could sway my opinion some to this assumption at least.

Most suicides that I've heard of have more to do with mental illness than social hardship.  As such many of the people committing suicide are in middle class standing with fine quality of life.

Wow, so many assumptions to work through.  Give me some stats, please.  Not only are you assuming that more are BECAUSE (cause and effect) of mental illness, but, and here's where it gets good.  You think that the middle class guy that off's himself should be satisfied with his quality of life, so much so that it's out of the question that he's not.  That again is using your conclusion to support your conclusion.

You can't say that a middle class man, that off's himself due to his life situation can't do it because he has too good a quality of life to think not.  Only he can say that's why he's doing it.  You are just restating your opinion, and using that to justify your opinion.

Kami, as for cowardice, I understand depression.  I've seen it in my mother, and I've seen it in people that have off'd themselves.  But, first, I think it's an over used term.  I think too many people blame it for their actions (there is a huge difference between being depressed and clinical depression, and the word is used to cover both).  Second, even with depression, it doesn't change the fact that it's cowardly.  That it lacks courage.  

My mother suffers from depression.  But not full out clinical depression, where her judgment is no longer sound.  She's on medication for it, but it's still no excuse for suicide.  If she were to take her own life, I'd say it was cowardly of her too.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, having been a Christian, I know that even Protestant churches consider suicide a sin.

Also, quality of life ISN'T subjective.  A middle class person by having money for food, shelter, healthcare, etc. they have a quality of life absolutely higher than those that don't have those things.  You act like quality of life is just an indication of if someone is happy with their life.

Also, as someone already posted, suicide rates are lower in third world countries where they have horrible quality of life.

All I'm saying is that there is little to no correlation between quality of life and suicide, and the various arguments made here show that there are so many other issues that you can't consider suicide rates are a support for the US having better quality of life.

No, we didn't all provide documented stats on everything, but get a life and post elsewhere if you want those.  I noticed many others here making claims with no support, yet I don't see you posting like this in response to them.  Just get a fucking life already.

Ace, you have a friend that suffers from depression.  Whoop de fucking do, I have a...me, who suffered from depression as a result of my anxiety disorder (which I'm medicated for).  I know what it is like.  I've never been suicidal per se but I know what it is like to be so low that you think about whether you want to live.  What I find problem is the concept that life is a battle that you must fight and to give up the fight is cowardly.  Life isn't a battle, it is just life...it ends.  It is no more or less cowardly to have it end at one point or another for one reason or another.  The only thing bravery and cowardly apply to is life.  It is brave to fight a war, it is cowardly to not stand up for what you believe.  It isn't cowardly to kill yourself.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, having been a Christian, I know that even Protestant churches consider suicide a sin.

Suicide is not considered a mortal sin by the Baptist Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ, the two I attended as a child.  They still hold funerals, still bless the spirit and send it to heaven (in their words).  I've also been to the funeral of a Lutheran suicide.  It was in the church.  If it was a mortal sin (as Catholics believe), the priest can't give rights, and the body can't be buried in holy ground.  The Catholics believe it is a mortal sin, one that cannot be forgiven.  So, what you know doesn't jive with what I know.

Also, quality of life ISN'T subjective.  A middle class person by having money for food, shelter, healthcare, etc. they have a quality of life absolutely higher than those that don't have those things.  You act like quality of life is just an indication of if someone is happy with their life.

It is subjective.  Quite subjective.  I can have money, food, shelter, and feel that my government is oppressive, that I'm not given enough freedoms or liberty.  You and I could have exactly the same income, house, etc, and I can feel completely differently about the quality of life.  Hell, look at you, you find the overall quality of life better in Canada, no matter how much you make.  Go fucking figure.  It so very much is subjective, when it involves the choice we make.  And suicide is a choice.

Also, as someone already posted, suicide rates are lower in third world countries where they have horrible quality of life.

In a word.  SUBJECTIVE. They could very well feel that their quality of life isn't bad enough to kill themselves over.  

How many third world countries have you been to Bondo?  Are you telling me the people aren't happy?  Can't be happy?  Or that their happiness doesn't reflect upon quality of life?  Because you seem to be measuring quality of life only as food, shelter and money.  If that were the case, how could the USA with it's GNP not rank highest?

All I'm saying is that there is little to no correlation between quality of life and suicide, and the various arguments made here show that there are so many other issues that you can't consider suicide rates are a support for the US having better quality of life.

I've seen no argument here that shows they aren't connected.  I've just seen you repeating your opinion in support of your opinion on it.  You started this thread as a challenge to my position, so challenge it, don't just keep calling it wrong.  Show some proof.

No, we didn't all provide documented stats on everything, but get a life and post elsewhere if you want those.  I noticed many others here making claims with no support, yet I don't see you posting like this in response to them.  Just get a fucking life already.

LOL.  You didn't provide anything.  Just get a fucking education.  Learn about cause and effect and the scientific method, please.  Hell, I even point out to you the statistics that really make sense in YOUR argument.

Why am I directing my comments only at you?  Get over yourself.  I posted to both you and Kami, the only two that are really posting in opposition to my stance (which is where this all started).  

Even Mauti told you how off base you were on the Americans being more religious then Europeans comment.  Bondo, learn to admit when you have something wrong, it would make this the friendlier place you claim to want it to be.

[jn.loudnotes]

I think one problem is that you're looking at different measures of quality of life.  There's satisfaction - the subjective feeling a person has about their life.  There's also the statistic, which takes into account GNP (monetary issues) as well as health care, job availability, and the like.  

Congratulations, you're both right.  (gasps)

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bucc, I never said what type of sin suicide was, just that it was a sin in all Christian faiths that I know of.

Once again, you mix quality of life and enjoyment of life which are two distinct thing.  Like I said, quality of life is a measure of the tangible comfort provided at the mean income.  And Canada at the mean income has higher quality of life than does the US.  So says the UN which is the most difinitive source for this comparison.

And Bucc, if you actually would get over YOURSELF and read this thread, there are many reasonable arguments against using suicide rates as a measure of quality of life.  And while Mauti said my claim about religion in Europe was wrong, Kami said it wasn't...and remember I didn't make an absolute statement about Europe.  So why should I admit I'm wrong when I've not been shown that my statement is wrong.

[kami]

The thing about religion and such is that in the US, you have to say that you are a believing christian to even have a chance of being voted for senator, let alone for president. In Europe no one would ask a question revolving what philosophy they followed. It's just not relevant here.

Oh and I'm sure that we have a lot of religious people in the catholic countries to the south but up in the north, there are not a lot of people going to church. Just as I believe that there are more christians in the American bible belt and fewer up on the east or west coast...

[Cobra]

Hmm...
I guess I fail to see how the term "quality of life" must be applied solely to someone's tangible possessions and income.  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I always thought the quality of someone's life was a matter of subjective opinion, and not something that a numerical value can be slapped onto based on how much money they make every year, or whether they drive a Honda Civic or a Lamborghini.  I know that when I state that the quality of my life is excellent, it's certainly not because I'm rich (because I'm not), and if I had all the money in the world I don't feel I would necessarily have a higher quality of life.  Can a rich person not feel they have a poor quality of life?  Why not?

I guess it's all in how you define "quality of life"...and my definition is definitely not the same as yours.

Another thing.  If your idea of someone's quality of life is exclusively dependent on their wealth and possessions, wouldn't that render your initial argument incorrect?  If that's your idea of "quality of life", wouldn't the US have the highest quality of life based on its GNP, as Bucc suggested in an earlier post?  Your definition doesn't sit well with the arguments you based this entire thread upon.  Either you have severe holes in your logic, or perhaps you changed your definition of the term midway through the thread for some reason.

I hate to assume (and Bucc, by all means correct me if I'm wrong), but it seems as though Bucc's interpretation of "quality of life" varies from your own in the same way mine does...wouldn't, then, the challenge of Bucc's opinion that caused you to start this thread be pretty much moot?  If you have differing ideas about what the very thing you are arguing about even means, I seriously doubt you are going to achieve much of anything here.

Suppose for a moment, Bondo, that the term "quality of life" was directly determined by someone's satisfaction with their life, instead of by their paycheck.  Would you still disagree that suicide can be result of a poor quality of life?  If yes, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I never said what type of sin suicide was, just that it was a sin in all Christian faiths that I know of.

No, you didn't say which type, you just gave the definition of a mortal sin (being damned to hell for all time).  So, like I said, it's Catholics that have that real fear (if they are devout and agree with the church), not Christians.  Christians believe that suicide can be forgiven (meaning they will not burn in hell).  Sorry if you didn't know the difference between a sin and a mortal sin.  But you sure projected Christians to believe they were going to burn in hell for all time because of suicide, and that just isn't correct.

Once again, you mix quality of life and enjoyment of life which are two distinct thing.  Like I said, quality of life is a measure of the tangible comfort provided at the mean income.  

And again I say that enjoyment of life is a subset of quality of life.  That liberties are important, but still subjective.  You can keep spouting a UN report all you want, since it absolutely has no bearing on what I am saying.  This whole thing started when I said I don't agree with that rag, because it didn't take into account the subjective nature.  So for you to keep pulling that as your evidence is ridiculous, to say the least.

And while Mauti said my claim about religion in Europe was wrong, Kami said it wasn't...and remember I didn't make an absolute statement about Europe.  So why should I admit I'm wrong when I've not been shown that my statement is wrong.

Actually, Kami has only spoken about Sweden, and now Northern Europe.  Not all of Europe.  Or, are you changing the rules again and saying that's what you meant when you said "Europe"?  When you take Europe as a whole, they are very religious people.  Man, think about including East Europe even.  WOW.

You, are still a dumbass Bondo.  Like I said, if you want to find some proof (and it is you accusing me of being wrong in this tread) of religions effect on it, look at one nation.  You are trying to compare many nations, with many differences, and attribute the difference to one source.  You'll never, ever be able to prove anything that way.  Scientific Method.  You have to eliminate the other variables.

This is the same reason that your UN "less homicide with strict gun control" stats don't apply.  Because you are looking at countries that have so many differences in them, and ignoring the ones that just don't fit your reasoning.  To see if strict gun control really works, there have to be no other variables.  So, look at countries that have changed the laws, in either direction, and look at rates in those countries for both before and after.  That's what I did.  And guess what, I showed studies where violent crime (homicide, rape, etc) went up in the countries and states that banned or had strict controls, and down in states (no information on countries could be found) that had more liberal gun laws (i.e. more people could carry them in public).  Those are telling stats.  

Again Bondo, you just try to find facts and stats that support your conclusion, you don't use them to actually develop your conclusion.  Typical for you.

[kami]

Bucc, you just can't defend the American gun laws, they're rediculous imo. Also I agree to that there are many other variables such as the American culture, which seems to have many aspects based on fear...

Also on the quality of life topic, I'd say you should talk about the median citizen and not about the average.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, you just can't defend the American gun laws, they're rediculous imo. Also I agree to that there are many other variables such as the American culture, which seems to have many aspects based on fear...

<sarcasim>thanks for that completely unjaded point of view Kami</sarcasim>

What you really don't get Kami is I'm not telling you the USA is a better place for you.  If you are happy where you are at, that's great for you.  You should be there.  I'm not trying to convince you this is a better place.

You though, keep taking jabs at America.  You sure seem to be saying Sweden is a better place.  You don't like guns, great, live some place that doesn't have them.  Great, you do.  I think guns are ok.  Great, I live some place that does have them.  

Tell me what the fuck is wrong with that stance?  It's you and Bondo that are on the kick about why Europe is better.  And, like I've always said, if that's what you think, you should live there.  But you should not try to convince me it's better, because I HAVE LIVED THERE, and I like America better.  It's subjective.  I find liberty more important then you.  Great.  You find social welfare more important then me.  Fantastic.  None of it is ridiculous, as you claim gun laws are.  The only thing that is ridiculous is you and Bondo trying to tell others Europe is better.

That's been my point all along.

By the way, I want to add how disappointing it is for me to see such a closed minded and ignorant statement by you Kami.  That's as closed minded and dismissive as it gets.

[kami]

It is my experience that the American culture has many aspects based on fear, I guess you could say the source of that opinion is Mr. Moore mostly, but that does not make it incorrect even though I guess he might be a bit radical on some other matters. I like trying to see things objectively, of course it's hard to do so for anyone but I try atleast, and I don't think that liberty should be about the right to own a gun. Because absolute liberty is anarchy.

I'd be glad to live in the US because I think it's a great country, I just point out the flaws I see.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

It is my experience that the American culture has many aspects based on fear, I guess you could say the source of that opinion is Mr. Moore mostly, but that does not make it incorrect even though I guess he might be a bit radical on some other matters.

So, you form your opinions based only upon the opinions of others.  No first hand knowledge or experience of your own?

So, what fears are my life based upon?  Let me know?  I really want to know what it is that I'm afraid of.

I like trying to see things objectively, of course it's hard to do so for anyone but I try atleast, and I don't think that liberty should be about the right to own a gun. Because absolute liberty is anarchy.

There was absolutely nothing objective about your former statement about US gun laws.  Completely closed minded.

Absolute liberty may (and I don't agree completely) be anarchy, but liberty was one of the cornerstones of this society.  People forget that.  Many, most even, of the people that immigrated to the USA from the 15th century on, did so for the liberty.  Be it religious, governmental, or any other oppression.  This country was built on the doctrine of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Other countries have different feelings on it, and that's really good for them.  There should be diversity in it.  But I'm for a country with more liberties.  And will fight to keep the spirit of those liberties alive and kicking.  And that includes guns, along with many, many other things.

[kami]

I guess you're right, I shouldn't just rely on what Moore says, I'll read up on it a bit more and answer later when I'm a bit more enlightened. You should go see bowling for columbine if you haven't already, you might not agree with it but I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

Just because a country was founded on something doesn't mean it has to follow it to death, for example, Sweden was founded as a kingdom closely connected to Christianity, look what it is today.

[Precious Roy at work]

Call me crazy, call me a coward, call me whatever, but I see suicide as a perfectly acceptable and viable manner of escape.  I don't excuse someone for committing suicide, as often it puts a great burden on others, but I don't see it as cowardly either... simply unorthodox, I suppose.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I guess you're right, I shouldn't just rely on what Moore says, I'll read up on it a bit more and answer later when I'm a bit more enlightened. You should go see bowling for columbine if you haven't already, you might not agree with it but I'm sure you'll find it interesting.

More importantly, you should visit and see for yourself.

Michael Moore is a local boy for me.  His first big movie was all about Flint (Roger & Me).  He chose to follow around a guy foreclosing on properties, show a woman that sells and eats rabbits.  Basically, to show things in the most extreme light possible.  Not the average or mean, but the most extreme cases.  

Further, he's pretty much a socialist.  His beef with Roger Smith centered on the fact that GM didn't concentrate on creating jobs (in Flint) but used it's profits to purchase other companies (which it grew, but which Moore ignored).  He also failed to mention that an 18 year old kid, without a high-school diploma made more working for GM as a UAW employee, sweeping the floor, then the entry level designer with a college degree (still the case, btw).

I was here when he filmed Roger & Me, so I saw it first hand for what it was like here.  And how slanted his view was.  Sure, mines slanted too, but I'm not advertising Flint as the new mecca either.

So, I take that, and the snippets I read from "Bowling for Columbine", and decided it just wasn't worth the time.  Like I said before, showing gun related deaths across different countries only incites a visceral, emotional reaction.  It doesn't mean that much alone.  You have to look at more then just that.  You have to look at areas that have change the laws, in both directions, and see what happened.  Like violent crime rising pretty universally where guns were restricted/banned.  Live violent crime and gun related deaths being much lower where CCW permits are handed out liberally.  Moore ignores those facts, and plays for the theatrics of it.  

Also, his editing of Charlton Heston in the movie makes him sound as bad as that liberal girl from PY's sound-bite.  

So no, I treat Michael Moore like I do Rush Limbaugh.  They both fall into the same category as far as I'm concerned.