What does Veeky Forums think of self-immolation like pic related? is it justified as terrorism?

What does Veeky Forums think of self-immolation like pic related? is it justified as terrorism?

killing yourself isn't terrorism, killing other people is

Killing yourself isn't terrorism if other people don't die

Killing yourself in protest without harming others is infinitely more admirable than pushing your will and values onto others to make a statement.

What about pushing your will and values onto others just for personal convenience? Sort of like how you push slave labor onto the chinamen who built your laptop or the congolese who dig the coltan out of the ground with their bare hands. Suicide is certainly preferable to that. Must be why technologically advanced first world countries have highest rates of suicide.

I don't follow.

Whether they believe slave labor is better or worse than death is for them to decide, and for me to speculate on it makes no sense.

I can only guess that through their actions they believe it is preferable to death.

The epidemic of high suicide rates in 1st world countries is a matter entirely different than self immolation as a protest.

What are you trying to tell me anyways.

You're making an altruistic argument, that it would be ethically preferable to commit suicide rather than coerce and impose your will on others, even if your will is something good, like how the burning monk wanted to protest the persecution of buddhists at the hands of puppet S. Vietnamese regime.

But let's switch the roles. Why, then, are the people who benefit from slave labor (aka you and me and the other first worlders) not obligated to kill ourselves, rather than imposing our economic will on the 3rd world?

They say that self immolation is the most painful way to kill yourself, the fact that he was able to do this without even so much as a yelp of pain is incredible, what devotion. I wonder if he was in a meditative trance.

But no its not terrorism, terrorism is using violence (or the fear of violence) against others to get them to enact political change.

>Sort of like how you push slave labor onto the chinamen who built your laptop
choosing to work for wages we would find unacceptable and in conditions we would find deplorable is not slavery. Slavery is being forced against your will with the threat of violence should you not comply to do work you don't want to do. Was this what you were referring to, or were you referring to something else?

>Slavery is being forced against your will with the threat of violence should you not comply to do work you don't want to do.
Oh ok, so like how Coca-Cola hires assassins to kill union organizers in south america. is that a better example?

Because we are not attempting to protest or martyr ourselves for any great cause.

It was in the context of making a statement.

Economics is entirely different, and on that topic I believe there is no moral obligation of any party.

>It was in the context of making a statement.
Right, so why does self-expression all of a sudden make you ethically obligated to kill yourself, but not actual material benefit? Why do you have moral obligations for abstract things like "making a statement," but not concrete things like economic exploitation?

Not even the guy you're responding to, bit you're trying to take this discussion in a really tangential direction m8

I never said a protester was ethically obligated to kill themselves. I said it was more admirable because I believe any system that encourages disapproval with non-violence is admirable and preferable to the alternative of violent outbursts.

I really don't understand the connection in your second sentence, pushing a political agenda has repercussions that can be wholly off topic from economic situations, they are not mutually inclusive.

What discussion? The OP asked if burning yourself is terrorism. I'm at least trying to have an interesting debate. I think when that guy made a big general proclamation that killing yourself is preferable to imposing your will on other people, he didn't consider how much you impose on other people all the time.

its an example of something other than slavery

My point is, just by being alive YOU yourself are imposing your will to have a smartphone and a computer onto the laborers who have to actually make those things and don't make enough money to ever buy one themselves. In that case, is it still ethically preferable to kill yourself?

>pay for things
>people make things for you because they like having your money
>YOU MONSTER

>>>/helicopter/

Suicide is going to be looked at as a disproportionate response and is unlikely to catch on. You can potentially accomplish more by buying less crap you don't need and buying what you do from different sources.

Nice memes. That's not my point at all. I'm arguing AGAINST the original guy's idea that it's more admirable to kill yourself than impose your will on others, because that's totally absurd.

I want to make sure you understand my original post was specifically about making political statements.

I'm not sure what answer you expect considering I said quite clearly I do not share the same opinion about economics.

You really ran off with this in an odd direction.

>an odd direction
No, you can't just say "well economics and politics have two different sets of moral standards" and not elaborate on why or how they're different. Thankfully this guy [] gave the correct answer. My only point was that your original formulation (it's more admirable to kill yourself in protest than push your will and values onto others) is sort of nonsensical. I think you tried to make a generalization out of a specific case.

I still don't understand how you can just declare that it's ok to push your values on others for economic reasons, but not political ones.

>Killing yourself in protest without harming others is infinitely more admirable than pushing your will and values onto others to make a statement.

It says right there at the end man. To make a statement.

A man does not work in a congolese mine or a chinese sweatshop to make a point.

A terrorist causes terror to make a point, as the monk self immolates to make a point.

Because they are attempting to either inform or persuade you to a cause, their methods are very important in that delivery. The monk choosing a path of self sacrifice is more admirable in my opinion because surely he must have felt a lot of emotion towards his situation. He was able to prevent raging against his oppressors and/or innocents unlike terrorists, while instead choosing to martyr himself shows to me that his conviction is stronger than anything I personally have ever felt.

I have a different opinion economically because I personally do not believe they are mutually inclusive ethically.

Maybe you disagree with me, but for the time I'm willing to spend on it, this is the best explanation I can give you lad.

Maybe now, instead, we can answer OP.

>we can answer OP.
Don't let me stop you, it's a stupid question. I'm just trying to have an intellectually stimulating debate about the nature of altruism and moral obligation, you don't have to take it personally.

>Coca-Cola hires assassins to kill union organizers in south america
Sauce?

>Sort of like how you push slave labor onto the chinamen
>YOU
I haven't pushed shit on a chinaman

I couldn'tgive less of a fuck about his motifs but the fact that he went through with it is incredible

Violence is never OK, he should have protested peacefully instead.