Suicide is a permanent solution to a permanent, pervasive problem

Death is not bad. Because it ceases the thing (you) that it would be bad for. There is no 'you' to be harmed by death.

Suffering is bad. We suffer in various ways, near constantly. Sometimes very mildly (bodily discomfort, thirst, hunger, boredom,work, etc), sometimes majorily (mental illness, massive bodily harm, despair, abuse, exploitation).

Suicide will end your suffering, and the resulting 'death-state' will not harm you (because there is no you to be in that state).

So here we have suicide putting an end to a bad experience (life in general), with no real downside. There is no you existing anymore to be deprived of the good in life.

So the next time you are greatly suffering, or even mildly, why not just take a peaceful drug overdose. Your pain will end, you wont miss out on anything in the future. There is no downside.

"b-but I will miss out on xyz". That's the point, no you wont.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=NowjSrlp0Hg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Nigga you gotta imagine Sisyphus happy

There is a downside, you'll go to hell for committing suicide. You'll miss out on heaven.

Neck yourself, faggot.

If you really believed any of that, you would kill yourself before trying to convince anyone else to kill themselves.
Thus your argument is in bad faith.
Kindly kill yourself.

my Nietzscha

Great responses guys.

I raise you the counterpoint: Being alive is good. Seeing your kin alive is good. It is a sentiment just as strong as the contrarian one that suffering is bad.

My enjoyment in life outweighs the suffering

It's all intellectual bullshit and giggles until you find yourself in Hell.

pollyannaism, optimism bias

neither of you are intelligent enough to grasp how much we suffer

No it isn't, because death is not a terminal condition, but a transition.

>pollyannaism
Bullshit, bad memories stick in our lives more than good ones
>muh optimism bias
I could just as easily accuse you of pessimism bias.
How hard is it for you to accept that not all of us are neets, and that some of us have bright futures ahead of us?

>it's that antinatalist again
you are just arbitrarily deciding things are good and bad, I can do the same

suffering is kind of bad but nonexistence is also bad and so is a world full of psychos who don't care whether you exist or not, as long as you don't suffer when they blow your brains out, which would be the end result of your beliefs, prove me wrong

I would gladly live to age 90 as a multimillionaire rock star even if I suffer occasionally, I would not want to be instantly euthanized after accidentally stubbing my toe

>Op claims that suicide is dope and everyone should do it
>is still alive

Hmmmm

>and that some of us have bright futures ahead of us?

you'like a rat in a cage perpetually trying to reach the sign on the wall in front of the wheel that says 'brighter future'

you imagine yourself as happy in the future in order to put up with the present. you never leave the present.

>suffering is kind of bad but nonexistence is also bad

bad for whom? that's the point of the OP. nonexistence is bad for nobody. suffering is bad for you. end suffering is +1. not existing is neuttral. net benefit.

Life can both be a good and a bad experience. If we assume experiences to be quantifiably good or bad, and death to be neutral, suicide is only rational if for no subset of future time starting now the expected sum of experiences is positive.

>I would not want to be instantly euthanized after accidentally stubbing my toe

Why? because you believe that your future experiences of god will be thrwarted, you will miss out on them, you have a continued interest in your own existence because you orientate yourself in the present towards a future in which things are better.

my point is that non of this shit matters to a dead person. you couldn't be deprived of these things in the future, you can't be deprived by your desirces being thrwarted. there is no you anymore

it is perfectly rational to end your life over something as mundane as mild hunger or boredom. The suffering of those will end, and there will be no way in which you could miss out on, or be deprived of the good experiences that may occur when you fic your headache r hunger.

So why don't we?

OP here, I am not actually advocating for people to literally kill themselves because of what I say. at the end of the day that is an extremely personal decision done for a myriad of reasons.

In this thread I'm just presenting an argument that suicide both a perfectly rational response to a negative experience, and it would not at all be a bad thing for the person who dies.

What is this 'sum' nonsense?

Life isn't lived in the long term, with two buckets we add positivie and negative experiences to.

We all just inhabit the present in a process of experiencing.

You all seem to view existence like this timeline you're travelling on, leaving behind a trail of either good or bad experiences. And if when you reach the end of the line and the good experiences outweight the bad then the life was worth living.

As I say this is just a wack ass way of viewing time. We are all just this ever present process of experience. We may project a past behind ourselves within our minds, but it is not an objective record of our existence 'out there' that we are somehow accessing, but rather it's just a mental image of 'before now' we mentally conjure up. Our experiential past is created within and inhabits this 'presence' of experience that we exist within (which has the structure of a being a body within an outside world).

The past is completely irrelevant. If you expect your future to be positive it would not be rational to suicide, even if your past is shit. Or rather your past is only relevant in how it affects your future.

>Life isn't lived in the long term, with two buckets we add positivie and negative experiences to.
Why not? If I expect my next week to be generally negative but the following week to be positive to a higher degree, it would not be rational to kill myself. The same can be applied to any subset of the future. Just assign arbitrary opposite numbers to those experiences with magnitudes in relation to their negativity or positivity and you can sum them. Or don't and ignore the numbers, they just make a point easier.

>If I expect my next week to be generally negative but the following week to be positive to a higher degree, it would not be rational to kill myself.

but you'd avoid the negative week, and wouldn't be deprived of the positive week

so that's one positive (avoid pain and suffering), and one neutral (not deprived of the good week - no 'you' exists anymore to experience or be deprived)

like I say you're just a rat running in his suffering wheel staring at the poster on the wall in the future that says 'better times ahead'. You never get off the suffering wheel.

That's ridiculous. Of course I would be deprived of the positive week. And even if I were to accept your logic, it would also imply that I wouldn't be deprived of the negative week either (no 'me' exists anymore to experience or be deprived).
Both terrible and inconsistent logic, user.

>Of course I would be deprived of the positive week.

How? What would be being deprived? Nothing exists anymore, there is no you existin anymore for the state (or experience) of deprived/deprivation to be attributed to.

>And even if I were to accept your logic, it would also imply that I wouldn't be deprived of the negative week either (no 'me' exists anymore to experience or be deprived).

I agree, post death there is no you to avoid the suffering week.

My point is that at the very beginning of when you actually start sufferying, when the week begins and your experience has negative hedonic value, the killing yourself right there would be a good thing, because the experience you are having at the present (suffering), would cease to be experienced.

You go from suffering experience to nothing. And once you are nothing, there is nothing in existence to be deprived of the good.

I'm not saying once you cease to exist it is a good thing for you because you will avoid the bad week ahead of you. I'm saying once you cease to exist the bad experience you are presently undergoing ceases.

A bad thing stops.
No good thing is missed out on.

Perfectly rational isn't it? The next time you are suffering to the point where you would rather skip your experience entirely until a present time in which your experience is better, it would be perfectly legitimate to just neck yourself instead.

I think also the confusion in this thread is that for the majoirty of people various biases are preventing them from understanding just HOW much we suffer. Just how much we spend imagining a future in which far exceeds the present. Just how much we constantly orientate ourselves towards a future in which tings are better. Why do we do this? Because are suffering RIGHT NOW.

Ask yourself, if god came down and said, I can make what you experiencing right now last for eternity. Most would highly deny it, why? because we are suffering.

I never got this logic. So you die and your soul leaves your body but how can your soul even feel pain if it's not physical?

>How? What would be being deprived?

Scenario 1 - no suicide:
Week 1: negative
Week 2: more positive
Overall: slightly positive

Scenario 2 - suicide:
Week 1: neutral
Week 2: neutral
Overall: neutral

>there is no you existin anymore for the state (or experience) of deprived/deprivation to be attributed to
By choosing the second scenario, you're missing whatever was in the first scenario. It doesn't matter if after suicide you don't experience anything, when you consider suicide you're choosing between the states of each scenario (and since they are mutually exclusive you're also choosing the states you will be deprived of). Think of it as the opportunity cost if you are familiar with the concept/it helps you.

>Overall: slightly positive

but this is my point, there is no 'overall'.

>Life isn't lived in the long term, with two buckets we add positivie and negative experiences to.

>We all just inhabit the present in a process of experiencing.

>You all seem to view existence like this timeline you're travelling on, leaving behind a trail of either good or bad experiences. And if when you reach the end of the line and the good experiences outweight the bad then the life was worth living.

>As I say this is just a wack ass way of viewing time. We are all just this ever present process of experience. We may project a past behind ourselves within our minds, but it is not an objective record of our existence 'out there' that we are somehow accessing, but rather it's just a mental image of 'before now' we mentally conjure up. Our experiential past is created within and inhabits this 'presence' of experience that we exist within (which has the structure of a being a body within an outside world).

your post:

>when you consider suicide you're choosing between the states of each scenario (and since they are mutually exclusive you're also choosing the states you will be deprived of).

No this is my point. suicide is not a choice between continuing on into a state of suffering (and perhaps a good experience in the future), and going into a state of non-existence.

Rather it's a choice of ceasing the suffering you presently undergoing, or continuing it. Your 'non-existence' post you ceaseing of your suffering is irrelvant, it's not even part of the argument.

The choice is between going on suffering, and not. What comes after either is irrelevant.

For exampl you break your arm. I'm not saying you should kill yourself because non-existing after you kill yourself is better than still having a broken arm. I'm saying the suffering pain of the broken arm can simply be cease (the pain stops), and there is no downside becase there is no 'you' beyond that ceassation of pain

non-existence is really quite irrelevant to my argument.

1. I am suffering and don't want to experience this
2. suicide
3. no more suffering anymore, and you aren't harmed by this because you don't exist anymore, you miss out on nothing, there is no you anymore

It is really perfectly rational to end your life over any minor suffering. It's not a bad thing for you, and you can cease whatever ills you.

you are in excruciating pain. that pain stops. you are no more. you are not deprived of when you would have got better. there is no 'you' anymore to experience or be in a state of deprivation.

If your desire is not feel any sort of pain that you are currently undergoing, then it's perfectly logical to just end your life, and fuflill your desire.

I tried suicide once. I failed, but since i felt really relieved when i made that decision, i figured out that i could take suicide as solution if my life goes to shit again.
I know can live freely, not caring much about anything and trying to be happy, because i know that, if anything goes wrong, there's a simple solution awaiting for me.
It's really liberating.

Well then I simply disagree that you can make any theory regarding decisions without looking at the future. All decisions are made in relation to the future. Most people would certainly not kill themselves if they were in bad pain but knew it would end in a second. If I was in pain due to my broken arms but knew I would get a blowjob in 5 minutes, I'd consider waiting, getting it, and then ending myself. Any decision implies a projection of the future, and even your wording ("continuing it") suggest a projection.

I'm OP and I also tried suicide in the past once.

I don't feel the same way as you. The prospect of actually attempting again requires so much courage and overcoming so much self doubt, so much finality, so much fear that is it not comforting the slightest.

I feel almost trapped in a way. When things get bad enough it's not simple an easy deicision to go out and quietly end it. Rather you have to consciously overcome like 3 billion years of natural selection producing the creatures that fight and strive to life above all else (those that didn't didn't pass on their genes). All of those mental barriers must be overcome - including the doubt about the nature of death (is it really cessation?), including the doubt about pain, about failure, about hurting those around you, and above all the doubt that if this is really the right decision, or am I simply doing a desperate act in order to escape some sort of crippling mental illness.

Nothin in this world fills me with more uncertainity than the prospect of my own self inflicted death.

Sometimes I think sucidie in a lot of ways really isn't a rational choice. it just sort of results, as a byproduct between two utter extremes. On the one hand we are all imbued with this almost unbreakable sense that we have a vested in terested in our own continued existence. it's innate, it's evolutionary. we strive and strive and strive to continue until death cruelly strikes us down, without which we would strive on. It's simply in our nature. But on the other hand some people are afflictted by the most terrible sufferings and evils - so bad in fact that this innate thirst and hunt for continued existence is superceeded by a desperate need to find pain relief/cessation. Simple put sometimes I think suicide is just a sort of side effect of a huge amount of suffering OVERCOMING our almost unbreakable will to survive.

Life just becomes so bad that one would rather lethally harm themselves and ceease their own innate interest in their continued existence. A nirvana by lethal violence. for some people, to cease is better than to suffer, because one suffers so badly their innate desire to go on is overcome.

It's really a testament to how bad life can be for some people, that they willingly take their own lives. they lethally harm their bodies, snuff themselves rather than go on. I find it an absolutel tragedy.

I agree basically. You are making a trade off here: "I am willing to suffer this pain in order to experience this good experience in the future"

My point is that if you were to instead just kill yourself while in pain, it would not be a bad thing for you at all. You wouldn't be harmed by it. You couldn't miss out on the blowjob (no you anymore to be deprived).

Of course you can make these tradeoffs - I will endure x amount of suffering to get y pleasure. My point is just that there is nothing irrational about not making this tradeoff. You will not be harmed. There is no actual need to endure the suffering because you will not be harmed by missing out on the pleasure.

Or put it this way. What's the reason that pleasure experiences in the future, after a certain amount of pain are worth it? Shouldn't we be indifferent? Who cares if you will experience pleasure in the future. You are in pain now, you can end this pain, with no downside.

Why endure? We should be indifferent to future pleasurable experiences.

>Why endure? We should be indifferent to future pleasurable experiences.

I think it's because you feel like your interested are being unfilfilled, you feel deep down you would be ebeing deprived, missing out.

My point here is you are not.

Anyone that commits suicide is truly evil, they are throwing away the gift of life and are ungrateful.

>My point is that if you were to instead just kill yourself while in pain, it would not be a bad thing for you at all.
I never said it would be bad, I said it would be worse than taking the trade off. Not bad in absolute terms, just relatively worse. Nor do I see why I would be indifferent to pleasurable experiences, I can always live them and end myself when my projected future no longer has them.
Anyway, I think we already understand each others position, so there's not much point to this. It also seems like you are suicidal and looking for justification.

>My point here is you are not.
Depends on your expectation for the future.

>I said it would be worse than taking the trade off. Not bad in absolute terms, just relatively worse

for whom? worse for whom?

I think you're just not grasping non-existence. It's not this state you go onto. Death is just the cessation of you present experience.

You take the trade off, suffer, and then experience pleasure.

You don't take the trade off, suffering ceases. You don't miss out on the pleasure.

The conflict between our positions is the degree to which I hold suffering to be negative, while you hold pleasure to be positive.

For me I place for more emphasis on the cessation of suffering, than on the attainment of pleasure. For you I expect it is the opposite.

I have thought a lot about the the actual nature of pleasure and pain, and I think my view on what pleasure actually entials is far more pesmissitic, than yours. For example I have even made arguments before that pleasure is not actually a net positive experience (in the way suffering is genuinely bad).

So I think my argument is more of an 'intuition pump' based on the way one personally views pain and pleasure. If you don't share my views on pleasure and pain, that I suppose I could never convince anyone.

a quick rundown is I believe pleasure involves a lot of optimism bias, a lot of pollyannaism, and a lot of 'aesthetic absorbtion' into some sort of activity.

In the way that suffering is genuinely negative, I do not believe that pleasure is simply it's mirror into genuine positivity.

t. Kirilov

but that's exactly the point. Even if you think 1 hour from now you will experience eternal bliss, but you are presently suffering greatly, if you were to kill yourself right then, it would not be a bad thing for you. You couldn't be deprived of the bliss, you wouldn't miss out on the bliss. There is no 'you' to be in some sort of negative state. Your suffering just ceases. Death is not bad for you. And if you are suffering, you can simply cease the suffering experience and no harm is done

I think the problem here is people are thinknig "but I don't want to cease the suffering because I will be in pleasure in the future". And what I am saying is sure, you can choose to make that tradeoff. My point is that not choosing to make the tradeoff is perfectly sane, rational, and is not harmful to you in any way.

To die by suicide while suffering, is to make a conscious choice to opt out of the trade off that we all make daily, and it's perfectly rational. Every day we deal with bodily dicomfort, thirst hunger , work, and far greater sufferings now and then, and for others, unbearable. There is nothing irrational to simply not make the trade. People who suicde are not mentally ill (well, most of them), they are making a cold rational calculus that a trade is not in their best interest, and are simple opting out of the exchange, no harm done.

Does everyone agree on this basic point? That suicide is not a bad thing for the one who dies (disregarding the effects on loved ones etc).

>The conflict between our positions is the degree to which I hold suffering to be negative, while you hold pleasure to be positive.
>For me I place for more emphasis on the cessation of suffering, than on the attainment of pleasure. For you I expect it is the opposite.
Not really. What I said is generic enough that it can be used to argue either way (suicide or non suicide) depending on the projection of future. The personal degree to which I value positively and negatively different experiences would determine if a given expected future is a net positive or negative. But my argument doesn't imply any sort of such personal valuation, nor do I emphasize pleasure over suffering or vice versa. It is generic enough to accept either my valuations or yours. For example if you perceive pleasure to be a negative, any subset of the future is necessarily equal or worse than the neutrality of death, making suicide rational.
Honestly, it can be used to argue in favor of suicide much easier than the opposite even if I were to use what I imagine is a normal valuation of experiences.

> a quick rundown is I believe pleasure involves a lot of optimism bias, a lot of pollyannaism, and a lot of 'aesthetic absorbtion' into some sort of activity.
I understand that you assume people have an optimistic bias in their projection of the future. But such bias is irrelevant in an abstract discussion of what would the objectively correct decision be, a bias would only affect the capacity of the person to take such decision.

good, I wish I could say the same

> depending on the projection of future.

What in my argument I am trying to do is make completely irrelevant one's projection into the future.

Basically it's

given that I am suffering now, and if I end it, no harm will befell me, I ought end it.

We can both agree suffering is something that ought cease no?

Or perhaps like this

given I have a desire to not endure this present sensation of suffering, and suicide will not only cease this, but have no negative effect on me post death. I should end it.

At no point in my argument am I trying to invoke some sort of projection into the future. I am talking about presently suffering. I am suffering, therefore suicide. Why suicide? Because the suffering ceases entirely. I am not harmed by it post death. It's irrelevant whether I may or may not have experience pleasure in the future.

Look I am not saying literally kys because you stubbed your toe.

My point is if you are in a bad place of suffering, ending it is a perfectly valid response. It ends, you aren't harmed by it ending.

I understand what you say user. I disagree that you aren't implicitly projecting a short term future in which your present suffering continues, but I get what you say.

and yes I agree convincing people pleasure is actually neutral at best is a better argument but nobody will ever be convinced of this unless they arelady grasp it so i wont bother

>I disagree that you aren't implicitly projecting a short term future in which your present suffering continues, but I get what you say.

You are right, that is what I am doing. But am I wrong? Do we really experience instant shifts from suffering to pleasure?

My experience my entire life has basically near constant suffering intersperced with some 'pleasure'. And I mean mostly mild sufferings. We are creatures who suffer it is undeniable. We have biological needs which cause us to suffer to fulfill them, constantly. We need water or we die a painful death, we need warmth or we die a horrible death, we need food or we starve slowly, a horrible death. Once all our biological needs are satisfied what do we get? A state of pleasure? Perhaps momentarulty but that soon gives over to boredom, ancxiety, dread, meaninglessness. Struggle to survive gives us a sense of purpose (which doesn't negate that we are suffering, it merely orientates ourselves towards a future in which we imagine our suffering is turned to pleasure). I'm hungry, I must work and attain food. I feel a sense of prurpose. I get the food. I say to myself, this is pleasurable. I get hungry again. The cycle continues. The whole time I suffered. Most of the pleasure from the eating came from the negation of hunger and fatigue. the 'pleasurable' taste of the food mostly involves a sort of aesthetic absorbtion into the pure sensation of the flavour. I type of distraction from ones experience, a sort of mindfullness distraction. We call this pleasure.

And then we become bored. Life in itself is suffering. We must fill it with entertainment, we must add to it. Or we suffer. And soon another biological need takes overs. thirst hunger heat cold lonliness the list is endless. And in the end we suffer and die regardless.

Our lives in my opinion are FAR worse than we think they are.

I think the problem is that not only are you trying to express a theory on the rationality of suicide, you are also trying to generalize your personal valuation of experiences onto others. It is pointless to project oneself ("My experience my entire life") when making abstract statements. Leaving that aside, I don't think what you say contradicts what I say.

I will add that in my personal valuation there are negatives that don't have positive equivalents. What is the positive equivalent of being tortured or your child dying? By equivalent I mean a positive experience that if happened would compensate the negative one. There isn't to me. Which implies that suicide would be rational if the possibility of that happening in the future wasn't null. But, again, I don't project myself onto others, and others could feel that positive experiences exist that would justify living through that.

Anyway, I'm going to sleep user.

if we see suicide as a *response* to suffering, a sort of form of violent pain relief, then op can be rebutted in this way:

like he says, we project ourselves as being happy in the future, often we are enduring suffering experiences. Op is saying suicide and the sufferng ceases, and you wont miss out on the bright future you imagined.

however we can analyze this instead as two different responses, or solutions to the way in which the 'suffering experience' problem is solved.

We can treat suicide like nothing more than a means to cease suffering. A way of solving the problem. But on the other hand we can treat, 'waiting for the suffering experience to end' as another way of solving the issue of the suffering experience

so then the debate becomes which response to the problem is better?

Should I violently harm myself and end my life in order to deal with my suffering. or should I just wait it out until I stop suffering (which in most people's worlds they imagine will be very soon). Which is the better solution to the problem?

There is another issue here that op brought up and that's whether suffering experiences ever really end, whether waiting for the 'future pleasure' is deluded, and pleasure doesn't really exist in the way we think it does. But it is a serparate issue.

if you really believed this shit then you would already be dead, so your argument is in bad faith and therefore not worth addressing.

& Humanities was a mistake.

it's a good argument, but we're all still alive so fuck off lol

/r9k/ is that way, user

>Suffering is bad. We suffer in various ways, near constantly.

How about we changed human brain so that humans become unable to suffer?

Have you read 'We' by Yevgeny Zamyatin? If you haven't, read it, and you'll realise why that's a disgusting and terrible idea.

I'm extremely pesmisstic that could ever happen

regardless, is it worth subjecting the next generatins and generatinos of people to lives of suffering so that possibly some time in the future brains could be altered to experience pleasure

was slavery worth it for all those who suffered so incredibly, because today some blacks enjoy freedom in society?

if you had slaves, would it be okay to breed them with eachtoher knowing that 30 generations from then their ancestors would be equal under the law in america?

Why should a society of bering incapable of suffering be opressive sureveilance state?

How do you scare into obedience somebody who cannot feel fear?

you manipulate him on a biological level, you use technology to steer him around like a rat with a remote-controll implant

thats what harris wants, a hell so terrifying no one can even vail or gnash their teeth

>Suffering is bad. We suffer in various ways, near constantly. Sometimes very mildly (bodily discomfort, thirst, hunger, boredom,work, etc), sometimes majorily (mental illness, massive bodily harm, despair, abuse, exploitation).

none of this is realy a pro or against suicide, you dont have to be happy or comfortable to live, people go trough shit you cant imagine and still live on till they just die of old age

>suffering is bad

thats a citation needed sort of thing

>We suffer in various ways, near constantly.

thats a question of choice
people do not believe its a question of choice for two reasons
firstly its difficult to make the choice conscious, its a thing that must be realised trough life and many dont ever come around it
secondly its a realy realy fucking hard choice

but realy suffering is a choice, and in fact the organism will always choose suffering if indulgence and satisfaction arent readily available, because the alternative to those is to endure, without solution, without relief, without pity or hatred or any other negative emotion, without desire for it to end or even asking whos fault it is, without any added value or meaning implyed, just endure

its not the same thing, you can feel pain but its a choice to suffer while you feel it, you can be hungry but to suffer because of it is a choice

this in itself is frustrating and makes people angry, somehow its hard to accept, precisely because suffering is the organisms favoured choice in those circumstances, you can stub your toe on a table leg or be dying in terminal stages of metastised cancer or kneel on a beer case for 10 hours a day in a concentration camp or loose a buss ticket, in any isntance you make a choice and that choice might be to suffer, or it might not

people come to understand this when the choice is forced on them

No that's you. Apply yourself and you might dig yourself out of the pit you've thrown yourself into.

thats not highly likely and its not why he should apply himself

things will probably get worse before they get better and its likely they will never get better

thats part of why he should apply himself, regardless, its simply the only thing he can chose to do, the only thing he has power over

if he applyes himself he actively engages in the process of life

suddenly, or not so suddenly, things will change, not in the sense they will get better, in fact its quite likely they will get worse, but in that he will get better, he will become better, he will develop trough his process and realise, bring forth, manifest what is within him, to the benefit and detriment of others

in the opposite case he will just stagnate and decay, he will become a walking corpse, if he even has the will to walk, he will merely weigh down the world

its part of the only real choices we have, before we die

You are pretending that you can make choices in a vacuum, and that morality is entirely egoistic. When you kill yourself, you cause negative effects to your friends, family, co-workers, and the world as a whole. As you say that suffering is bad, it follows that causing suffering is also bad. Therefore, suicide is bad, even if you say that its effects on yourself are entirely neutral. In addition, consider how the world would function if, let's say 15% of the world reacted to everyday pains by killing themselves; the world would not be able to function, causing untold suffering to others.

I'm going to go there so don't get triggered: It's all just chemicals man, while you could make a logical argument in favor of suicide almost no one will take it to heart because they are not in a mental state that would make them susceptible to your ideas, it is meaningless to them, your brain normally works to correct your emotions so you can continue for another day usually through sleep. It attempts to process the suffering enough so that you will continue, not by fixing your problems but by changing the composition of the the chemical soup in your brain. The brain works actively against pro-suicide arguments im this way.

Pretty sure he's working on that.

Guys suicides and writes letter telling people why he did it. People don't care about the letter and create some bulshit reason going against everything the guy believed. This will be his story forever because he can't stand for himself anymore.

a lot of people psychoanalzing me here

if it makes any difference I have a decent job and a gf, and a dog. I'm financially mostly secure.

Not sure why any of this shit is even relevant. Focus on my arguments, not on medicalizing my thought processes like some sort of kike psychiatrist.

It is my unironic hope that the entirety of reality ceases itself. 15% is not far enough.

You're just spooked by this idea of 'humanity' and it's persistence (for what? to what end?). It's just WE MUST PERSERVERE, WE MUST GO ON!.

why? why must we suffer? why must our children suffer? Why must our grandchildren suffer? All in service of some spook?

Also I find the idea that a suffering person ought stick around just so that his friends and relaitves do not grieve because of his act to be utterly repulsive.

The true egoism here is expecting someone to suffer greatly, so that you are not inconvenienced and hurt. WE DO own our own lives. My life is mine and mine to take.

I am OP

Many years ago I attempted suicide and basically outlined the argument in this thread. It was very simple and numbered. Something like this:

1. I am suffering greatly and I want it to cease
2. I will not be harmed post 'life cessation' - there will be no me anymore to be deprived or miss out on the good in life.
3. I am in a desperate state of pain and misery, drugs medications socialization I feel I have exhausted my options and I am tired.
4. Do not mourn for me. My desire to cease suffering in it's entirety is fulfilled.
5. I regret this may cause suffering for my loved ones, I hope you can understand
6. I truly do love and care about you all

Something like that. Of course like a retard I fucked up my suicide and just went into some sort of tard coma for a few weeks. Psychs just disregarded my note. Parents could hardly even grasp the argument.

Only guy that got it was some nurse in the psych ward who majored in philosophy as well. We had many discussions and he agreed with my logic. He had no real advice but it was comforting knowing somone else has grappled with this. He said all the psyc stuff was bullshit and I just had a massive existential crisis and probably have some severe anxiety disorder (got scripted shit tonnes of benzos).

Post script: I am not suicidal at all now. In this thread I just want to debate the validity and rationality of suicide in response to one being in suffering or misery, at any point.

Of course antinatalism is a given.

You're dead, Chick. Stay in the afterlife please.

youtube.com/watch?v=NowjSrlp0Hg