Angst & Frustrations Galore

[Peter Ahlstrom]

When I was in Jr. High, I had a friend whose parents were very controlling. If he wanted to do something, and asked his parents, they would often say "no." And when he asked why, they'd say "because I said so." And that was that--no explanation given, and as far as I know, quite often there was no reason besides powertripping. They also used the line "I brought you into this world and I can bring you out of it" from time to time.

My parents at the same time were not controlling. If I wanted to do something, they would ask if there was any reason not to. If there wasn't a reason (such as...homework done, no conflict with other obligations) we could do it. If my mom had a specific spiritual sense that we shouldn't, she'd let us know.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I strongly disagree with you and also point out that what you use as an example of adults being stupid is really just a matter of your personal ethics and morals. It is also a bad argument, since no one here (so far anyway) considers it stupid to save a life. Furthermore, since most people who attempt suicide suffer from clinical depression, its not clear if they make the conscious choice or if their illness forces them to make the choice to kill themselves. Depression is an easily treatable condition that we know a lot about and these people who under the crippling grip of clinical depression are very unlikely to feel the same way about the idea of killing themselves after they receive treatment. Aside from your halfway apologetic attempt in your last post to show that you sort of care, only not really that much your argument toward a very serious and very important subject is flippant and ignorent.

Basically you sound like a naive little 16 year old, and you pretty much make our case for teenagers not being mature enough to make serious life decisions. Skar pointed that fact out to you, but either you didnt want to understand him or you truly don't get it.

Now heres the part thats going to be hard for you to understand, I dont mean naive in a hurtful or a bad way. And I dont think Skar means his stuff in a bad way either because we've been there. Saint can add a perspective on how the parents act because he is a parent, I can tell you that its a good thing that the government treats suicide as a crime because I tried to kill myself when I was your age. We can do it because we've been where you are and then learned the hard way, all the while telling our parents, big brothers older friends or whatever how we know what we're doing because we're so mature.

Finally
On another level, I think your moral attitude is wrong because its just plain lazy and irresponsible... it screams, well its not my problem, let them kill themselves if they want, after all it doesn't affect me. Its the secular version of Cains attitude in Genesis. We do have a responsibility to our fellow human beings.

[Skar]

Archon, I was being serious but I was not trying to insult you, thus I tried to soften my words with the silly bit about setting myself on fire.

There are all sorts of unavoidable effects on the people around them from a person committing suicide and it makes sense to make it illegal in order to involve the powers that be in its prevention, as Jeffe pointed out.

As Jeffe also points out most ppl who try and commit suicide don't do so with a clear mind.  Most people who make the attempt and fail (usually when other  ppl intervene) are actually sending out a distress signal.  People who are serious and rational about it nearly always succeed anyway.  Making it against the law allows us to put the maximum reasonable effort into finding and therefore helping the distressed, while not actually limiting people's ability to kill themselves.

I have a story. (yay!) When I was on my mission (mormon, two year, religious proselyting) We kept getting calls from a woman who claimed she was going to kill herself.  After about fifteen of these where we listened, empathized and tried to hook her up with mental health professionals we located for her I got tired of it and finally told her she should go ahead and do it and then asked her what arrangements she had made in preparation. (Not something I would do now, being older and wiser)  How had she arranged for the disposal of her body, the settlement of her estate, the payment of her debts etc...?  She, of course, hadn't made any preparations and I could tell she was faintly annoyed with me.  All she wanted was some attention, not a sort of Spanish Inquisition after all.  After I made her sit in the comfy chair she stopped calling us.

I like to think that she did not make preparations as I suggested and commit the act but I guess I'll never know.

[Archon]

First of all, do you know where I originally got that example? I didn't realize it on my own. It was pointed out as being exceptionally stupid to me by an adult. So there you are. I am sure that there are examples that are more agreeable to the rest of the board, with the reaction that I got, but I didn't know that before I posted it. I never said that it was stupid to save a life. I said that it was stupid that the government would take it upon themselves to interfere in peoples lives in that way. Friends, family, neighbors, any of these talking a person out of killing themselves, perfectly acceptable, and I think for the parents and friends it is their responsibility if they know about it. It is not the governments responsibility, and it should not be for them to decide whether a person lives or dies.

Basically you sound like a naive little 16 year old, and you pretty much make our case for teenagers not being mature enough to make serious life decisions. Skar pointed that fact out to you, but either you didnt want to understand him or you truly don't get it.

Great. So now I am being treated as a little child, not someone to be taken seriously, because we have a difference of opinion. As far as Skar's comment, I wasn't sure if he was serious or not, and I was trying to clarify that. Don't act like I am a kid not able to understand complex thought. I think I have demonstrated that I am quite capable of it.

all the while telling our parents, big brothers older friends or whatever how we know what we're doing because we're so mature.

I have not said anything of the sort to my parents brother, or anyone else, perhaps excepting you now. I have not rebelled against authority. I haven't gotten into fights with my parents about drugs or partying or girls or anything like that. Because I am smart about those kinds of things, and my parents know that. I don't discard my parents opinions as useless "because I know what I am doing and I am so mature." I don't think it is rational to not consider an alternate viewpoint. I do disagree sometimes, but I consider their point of view.

Aside from your halfway apologetic attempt in your last post to show that you sort of care, only not really that much your argument toward a very serious and very important subject is flippant and ignorent.  

I never joked about this matter. I did not try to say that it wasn't serious. I do care. How was my post ignorant? I stated my opinion that the government had no right to interfere, and that it was morally wrong for them to do so. I don't see how that is an invalid opinion. I don't see how that is ignorant.
About my morals, you can think what you want. I do not think that anyone should have a claim on me, that anyone should be able to tell me what to do. It happens, but I don't think that it should any more than necessary. That means that I don't think it should be required of me to help people. Does that mean I won't help people? No, I help people every day. It means that I don't think that they should have a claim on me that forces me to help them. If I saw a person who was going to kill themselves, chances are that I would talk to them to try and convince them not to. But I don't think that they shouldn't be able to. And I don't think that the government should be required to save them.

I dont mean naive in a hurtful or a bad way. And I dont think Skar means his stuff in a bad way either because we've been there.

You are calling me stupid and immature. How can you interpret that in a good way? I am not your inferior, nor do I believe I should be treated as such.

Archon, I was being serious but I was not trying to insult you, thus I tried to soften my words with the silly bit about setting myself on fire.

Skar, I generally think you are pretty cool, partially because you remind me of me a lot of times. But you don't really soften a blow like that. The fact remains that you take me to be stupid and immature, but that is ok, because thats how all teens are. I don't see how I have earned that. I do not think I have been rude, My argument is well thought out even if you disagree with it, I have listened to the arguments of others.

[Master Xaio]

Another note - when do they have to come by, OutKast?  I bet if you were civil enough about it you could convince them to bring her.  Try to make a deal, and try to get your parents to talk to her parents about bringing her.  Of course, it would have been easier to do before little B lost her head - migraines or not, that will make your progress really, really slow from here on out.  I feel for you, man

Hehe, Gorgon, let me point something out.  We have been civil for the past 4 months.  All they do is sidestep the question.  Or, they promise that it will happen, before once again screwing us over.  We've tried to make a deal.  Actually, make that MANY deals.  It doesn't work.  Not to mention the fact that her parents don't honour the deals.

Next, you've said that all you have is a '3rd hand account & biased'.  First time you said that I think, you were referring to the quotes? Well, those were from my parents.  Very similar things were said to Beca, but, those are from my parents to me.  So. not quite third hand.

And I have a personal question I'd like to ask:  Why do you need to be face to face with her?  In the least, the girl is far too young to be doing anything physical, period.  If the parents openly allowed that I'd be very suprised.  And you are obviously communicating regularily, and that's what should really matter.  If you two are truly interested in eachother, what one another has to say should be the most important thing of all.  Especially concidering the fact that anything physical is highly inappropriate.  Can you really justify putting a terrible burden on your parents for a little face time?

And I don't recall seeing anything about you going out to see her, maybe I just missed that part.  If you haven't tried it, maybe you should, if this is that important to you.

Ok... the response to this is going to require a bit of time.  

First, Gorgon, do you have a girlfriend?  

Secondly... the 'physical inappropriateness'.  There are a few culture differences getting in the way here I think.  In Aus at least, people tend to start dating a bit earlier.  No, I didn't say having sex, I said dating.  Usually only the more mature people.  When they feel ready, they do it.  As for the physical nature - nothing serious is going to happen, and both our parents and us know it.  If nothing else, no one wants Beca pregnant.  But... its a bit of a culture difference, and different set of values so... I'm not going to argue this with you.  I'm just trying to present my point of view so you understand where I'm coming from.  People date earlier in Australia.  Its normal.  Accepted.

Third... going to see her.  Ok, I'm not sure how many people know this, but I have an allergy.  A pretty damn bad allergy.  I'm anaphylactically allergic to Red Meat (thus, all mammal meat) and its derivites, including Geletin.  I react to something about the size of an electron.  Its not a very well known allergy, as there are only about 40 or 50 ppl worldwide with it. I'm the only person with the Geletin allergy in Australia, and the only underage one.  So... its kinda hard to explain without a lot of background detail which would take ages, and would be very hard to explain, but because of that, her parents want to bring her here for our first meeting after the seperation, not me going there, as they're not entirely comfortable yet with handly food etc.

So, you have no real basis for calling the parents immature.  

Heh, want the list Gorgon?

Thats all I have time for now... I'll try to post more later.  If you have any major points or questions you want me to answer, I suggest you repost them, to make sure I get them.

[Spriggan]

Third... going to see her.  Ok, I'm not sure how many people know this, but I have an allergy.  A pretty damn bad allergy.  I'm anaphylactically allergic to Red Meat (thus, all mammal meat) and its derivites, including Geletin.  I react to something about the size of an electron.  Its not a very well known allergy, as there are only about 40 or 50 ppl worldwide with it. I'm the only person with the Geletin allergy in Australia, and the only underage one.  

just out of curiousty (becsaue I've never heard of this before and I'm not trying to be rude here), how are you noy allergic to yourself, her, your parents, JP and others?  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Archon, now you ARE responding immaturely. "Naive" is no more an insult then "Not understanding the deeper realities and believing in unrealistic outcomes due primarily to inexperience." Because that is what it means. Naive does not mean immature, stupid, and only has slight implications of ignorance, but "ignorant" isn't an insult in the context of argumentation either. All he was saying was that you lacked some proper perspective. Please try to be civil like everyone else has been in this thread.

As for the laws against suicide being stupid argument, you still have not made any valid argument for it beign stupid. You've made an argument for how you morally disagree with it. but differing on the moral qualities of a law does not mean it's stupid. Nor does an adult agreeing with you.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

"Naive" is no more an insult then "Not understanding the deeper realities and believing in unrealistic outcomes due primarily to inexperience." Because that is what it means. Naive does not mean immature, stupid, and only has slight implications of ignorance, but "ignorant" isn't an insult in the context of argumentation either. All he was saying was that you lacked some proper perspective.

to respond to a comment you have made to Scar

My argument is well thought out even if you disagree with it

Saying arresting people who commit suicide is stupid, and then saying, an adult told me so is not a well thought out argument. Now if you gave us some facts and statistics, explained how responding to situations like that puts officers at risk, or tends to do more damage than good or something logical about why the government should not respond that would be well thought out. Basing your opinion on the parents based on a one sided argument we're hearing about through the other persons boyfriend also doesnt seem well thought out.
At least as far as anyone reading your posts can tell. Heck as far as I know you have a pile of notes at home about both subjects but you havent done a very good job of presenting your arguments.

Heres an example

and I think for the parents and friends it is their responsibility if they know about it. It is not the governments responsibility, and it should not be for them to decide whether a person lives or dies.

So a cop is walking down a street and sees a guy with a gun to his temple, and theres no one else is around. In your world its not a law for police to deal with a person who wants to commit suicide.
The cop looks and says, I want to get involved, to tell the guy that someone loves him or that he shouldn't do it, but thats his parents and friends job, and theres no law telling me I have to respond and I might get in trouble if I do, plus I could get hurt.  And he walks along waiting for someone else to deal with the problem. Bang.

Really these laws weren't written for the guy in his den who blows the top of his head off with a shotgun( because they do it in secret), they were written because a guy in New York or Chicago decided they wanted to jump off a building ledge. So now you have lots of problems, since jumpers draw crowds, you have the potential for injury to a crowd member, you have the death of the jumper, you have a huge crowd impeding traffic and generally getting rowdy.

[Skar]

Archon:

I never said that it was stupid to save a life. I said that it was stupid that the government would take it upon themselves to interfere in peoples lives in that way. Friends, family, neighbors, any of these talking a person out of killing themselves, perfectly acceptable, and I think for the parents and friends it is their responsibility if they know about it. It is not the governments responsibility, and it should not be for them to decide whether a person lives or dies.

In the end, the parents and friends you speak of are the government. (at least in a democracy)  Making it illegal is how we, the voters, decided at one point to do our best to insure that our friends, parents and siblings with mental problems leading to suicide, don't fall through the cracks.

As for the "Are you serious" question.  I honestly was not trying to insult you and I don't think you are stupid and immature.  I never said that nor did I think it.  I said you lacked experience.  Not a crime and nothing to be ashamed of.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

If we left it up to individuals to decide who lives and who dies, there would be anarchy. I think the primary role of government is to keep law-abiding people alive and to deal with non-law-abiding people (keeping them alive too, but sometimes depriving them of life in the extreme situation when it warrants).

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

OutKast - I was really just using the 'why do you need to see her in person' argument to put a little perspective spin on the subject.  I am naturally giving the parents the benefit of the doubt, as compared to the kids, because I have heard the kids' side of the story, but not the parents.  So, naturally, it would be horribly biased of me to automatically side with you.  I don't like being horribly biased.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that I am not saying the parents aren't wrong - I was just trying to show Archon (and anyone else who may or may not have sided with you) that there is the possiblility that the parents' actions were justified and we just don't know of it.  That's all.  I am not taking a stake in the argument and saying either 'the parents are right' or 'the kids are right'.  I am just putting a little perspective spin on it.

Secondly - count yourself lucky that you can at least talk to her.  You could be in much worse situations, although this isn't the best situation you could be entwined in.  And, again, I feel for you and hope this turns out well.

And despite when you start dating in Austrailia (by the way, I know people that have been 'dating' since they were ten or eleven years old.  So, yeah, while a lot of people wait until they are older, it has become pretty common for people to date early), I stand by that anything physical (i.e. sexual) is innappropriate.  By that statement I didn't mean that your dating was innappropriate.  And I think you might have thought I meant that.

So, could your parents go up there and pick her up?  She could stay at an old girlfriend's house - which is where

And I never said you weren't civil.  I was just saying that you should remain such.  And I think your civility (?) has slipped occasionaly, at least once (in the quote you gave us).  Just keep it up as much as possible.  Are your parents talking to her parents about it?  If you get your parents to talk to hers you'll have a higher shot of getting your goal achieved, I think.

'whether or not Beca was mature enough to stay over at someone's place'

comes in, no?  You weren't talking about her staying at your house, where you?  If you were, it would probably be more acceptable for her parents to have her stay at an old friend's house under the supervision of an adult they know and trust.

I think your moral attitude is wrong

No.  You can't prove morals - morals are like religion - there's nothing you can say or do to sway somebody from their beliefs.  You can't prove mormanism or christianity or athiesm or judism or buddhism or paganism or anything else is wrong or right.  Sure, we have more proof for some than others... but what one believes is what they believe.

The same goes for morals.  If you can't prove something is right or wrong, don't call it right or wrong.  I know you were just expressing your opinion of it - but you were doing it in a harsh and doministic way.  I would have much prefered "I don't agree with the morals you have shown".  But you are NEVER to say ANYBODY'S morals are wrong in my book.  I take major offense to that, as your morals are no better than anybody elses.  There is always another moral side.  Always.  And the only reason you have the morals you have is because you were taught them by somebody else - don't call somebody wrong because their experiences tell them otherwise.

[MsFish]

The same goes for morals.  If you can't prove something is right or wrong, don't call it right or wrong.

Look at science.  Scientists are constantly proving things to be wrong that they have previously said were right.  That's because you can't ever prove things to be right, only to be wrong.  That leaves us with nothing that can be proven true.  Are we to believe in nothing?

(Look at that.  I promised I wouldn't get involved in this argument, and there I go.)

But as long as I'm getting involved, this actually started me thinking.  
Outcast--When I was in high school, I was dating this guy and his parents thought we were spending too much time together, so they wouldn't let him talk to me on random occasions.  It sucked.  I thought I was going to die.  I didn't die, of course, but I felt that way all the same.  So, I'm sorry you're going through this.  Right or wrong or appropriate or innappropriate, it still sucks.  

[Archon]

SE, I take being called naive as an insult. The fact wasn't that I didn't know what the definition was, I knew it, and was insulted by it. The major part of my offense is the fact that people are attempting to assert superiority over me, effectively looking down on me. I don't need nor want to be talked down to any more. I am talked down to by too many people already, and not to imply anything about the people of this board, but they are rarely as smart as they think. I have not directed an insult toward anyone on the thread, so far as I know, and if I have I apologize. I am not sure why you have decided that I was being uncivil and immature.
Ookla, I did not mean that the adult gave me my opinion. I said that they shared the opinion, they introduced me to the fact, and they said that they thought it was stupid. I thought it over, and I decided that I thought it was stupid. I think that it is stupid because the government is already too intrusive into people's lives. The government, through this law, could keep you alive against your will. Yes there are people who have depression that don't really want to kill themselves. Then again, there are people that really do want to kill themselves. And just because the government doesn't use it that way, doesn't mean that they can't. I think it is a big assumption on the government's part to say that it has the right to keep you alive. That is, in effect, what they are saying. People are gaining the ultimate control over other people through this law. The government, if it chose, could legally confine you, and keep you from killing yourself, against your will. Once again, this is an example of people thinking that they should have more power over everyone else. That is wrong because everyone wants more power over other people, and they get it through laws of this nature, which is obviously unfair. Keep in mind that citizens don't have a choice whether or not they are affected by this law, or any law that decreases their liberty. They can elect a different representative the next time, but laws are not often taken away. To tie this back in, I think that it is stupid for officials to think that they can force people to live, it is not their place, it is not fair of them to assert that right. If I were to point at another person and say I had a right to keep them alive, and they had no right to kill themselves, I would be seen as stupid. Because it is ridiculous to claim that kind of control over another person's life. The primary role of the government is to protect people from aggression. This category includes theft and murder. The government does not have the right to keep its citizens alive if they do not want to be alive.
As to my poorly constructing my arguments because of possibly wrong information, you can not claim with any more certainty that you are right than I am. You assume a great deal, whereas I am working with the information that I have been presented. I had thought that he might be embellishing, but I did not think so as there was no real insults between the parents and the daughter. Also he was fairly clear with his data, saying that such and such was in this month, or on this day. There is obviously some opinion as in him saying that they "refuse" to let them see one another. But if you take that as just stating that they haven't let the two see one another, I would still make the assumption that they don't want to, mainly because they had several months, which is a long time to make what could be a weekend trip, or maybe even shorter.
Jeffe, I never said that a police officer couldn't help this person. The police officer is, when it comes down to it, a human first. If the officer feels that they should help this person, then they are free to try to talk to them. They are just not legally obligated.
Skar, I am still angry over it, but don't worry about it. People tell me I overreact all the time, and they also tell me that I don't know when to let go. Maybe I am being stupid about it, but I don't see it, so I am going to go on being angry. Chalk it up to my being stupid, and move on I guess. As for your argument, I would say that it is people making a problem of theirs into a problem of someone elses. If you are going to lose someone because of a suicide, that is your problem. If someone decides to help the person that you are afraid of losing, be thankful to them. Do not say that someone had to do something, because they didn't. They did not know the person, and beyond the tragedy of seeing someone die, they are not going to miss the person tomorrow. It may sound cold, but I think that if you leave people to themselves, people will still offer assistance to someone so desperately in need.
Lastly, as an afterthought, give me some credit due to the fact that it is much harder to argue against SE, Skar, Ookla, Jeffe, and Gorgon, especially when I am on my own. I don't have anyone else's arguments to build on or bounce off of, and I also get swamped by the sheer volume of your responses.
MsFish, if you go by that philosophy, of nothing being certain, then you can get to the point where you can argue anything. There are some things that are black and white. Up, no matter the scientific explanation, is up. I am typing to you right now, nobody can convince me otherwise. 1+1=2. There are some definites.

[Mistress of Darkness]

I have to say this.

There is a universal difference between right and wrong. Truth does not adapt to individual circumstances.

Now, I'm not sure what Gorgon meant exactly, so I'm not trying to say that he's off base or anything.

[Mistress of Darkness]

I am talked down to by too many people already, and not to imply anything about the people of this board, but they are rarely as smart as they think.

Archon, I take great exception to this. I think you ought to try taking a bit of your own medicine.

Lastly, as an afterthought, give me some credit due to the fact that it is much harder to argue against SE, Skar, Ookla, Jeffe, and Gorgon, especially when I am on my own. I don't have anyone else's arguments to build on or bounce off of, and I also get swamped by the sheer volume of your responses.

I used to feel sympathy for your position, and so--even though I don't agree with most of what you are saying--I haven't really tried to argue with you about it. Imagine my unpleasant surprise at your last post. For someone who objects so strongly to being labelled, you might have the decency to pay others the same courtesy you demand.