The common theme in your writing is projection and hypocrisy. > "You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are broken. Live is awe

The common theme in your writing is projection and hypocrisy. > "You are not fit to make decisions regarding your own life because your are broken. Live is awesome, accept it." People are broken. Life is not always awesome. We live, we suffer, we die. Along the way, we cause suffering for others and ourselves. Do you deny this? Yet, that is not the totality of human existence. We have the capacity for good as well as evil. What you should accept is that circumstances can be interpreted and handled in many ways; some are productive, some destructive. The choice is yours. > You are never going to reach anyone suffering from a mental illness with that attitude. You simply will not. I hate to sound petty, but must I direct you to the post from "sad-throwaway" in which he indicated that I did? Perhaps your beliefs do not encompass the entirety of human experience. [1] > Let's first address the fact that you seem to be addressing me as if I'm the one currently struggling with suicide (I'm not). I'm glad you're not suicidal. I did not say that you were. Unlike you, I did not make such unfounded assumptions. I said that it was a possibility, which, not knowing you, it was. > You're telling me that my opinions on the subject are invalid and dismissable simply for that reason. No, I said that your reaction to my comment was objectively irrational, which it was. > Not only does that break HN's guidelines, but it's a complete non-sequitur and a poison pill to the debate. Had I taken all the poison pills you have deposited here, I'd be dead many times over. > This is why people who actually need help won't listen to you and others like you, regardless of how well-meaning your intentions See #1. > because you are not actually interested in listening to them which is what they need most As I said, you have conjured an image of me in your mind. That is irrational. I am not the other people you have dealt with in your life. Stop treating me as if I am. [2] > You want them to stay alive, but "Yeah, you want to save their lives, but you don't actually care about them!" > beyond that people don't really give the depressive much thought. I have to wonder how much they just want to stop something they find deeply uncomfortable, not for the sake of the depressed person, but for themselves. See #2. > Nowhere did I say they should definitely commit suicide so I'd appreciate it if you didn't heavily imply that. I need not imply that; your other comments in these threads have shown that you don't actually object to suicide when you think it's justified. Why you think you're qualified to make such decisions is unknown; regardless, you are not. > you telling them that their problem is temporary is not going to help as much as you think. Simply pointing out the obvious to these people isn't the profound insight you think it is. They've heard it a million times before and it doesn't help. See #1. There are many truths in any circumstance. Depending on one's state of mind, some are more acceptable than others. So what is your argument? Should there be a decision tree, used to decide which truths to present to which people, depending on their state of mind? Who will make it? You? Or is your argument that, if I present one of those truths in a case in which you, personally, don't think it will be effective, that it is proof that I don't care about other people and their suffering? Such an argument would be plainly illogical, yet it seems to be what you're getting at. I suggest you stop wasting time--write your dissertations and journal articles and books, and get yourself on the DSM committee, so your profound insight can start benefiting the mental health community. Or you can keep pontificating on the Internet. > And then there are the people for whom the problem is simply not temporary, but chronic. Such profound insight. I have never experienced nor thought of such a thing. Thank you for sharing! > Again. Awesome way to completely dismiss what I'm saying. It is awesome, because your reponse to my comment is objectively irrational. It's amazing, actually, because rather than deal with that problem, you double-down on it, accusing me in your next sentence of your own irrational behavior: > Address what I'm saying, not the reasons you have invented in your head for why you think I might be saying them. See #2. > And be charitable with your interpretations of what I'm saying. It's an HN guideline. Practice your own admonitions. > When I said 'you' here I wasn't referring to you specifically. I meant you as in people who try to reason with depressives in this way by telling them their problems are temporary. Stop saying "you" when you don't mean me. Stop attacking me for what other people do. See #2. If you want to address "people" who do something you don't like, go write a blog. Don't respond to me personally complaining about other people's actions. > Even if that was true (which you acknowledge in some cases it simply isn't) I'm, just telling you that it is a seriously unhelpful and often condescending manner to take with such a person. More profound insights from you! Thank you so much! Meanwhile, see #1. Also, lose the weasel words. "Often condescending" means that it's not always condescending, which means that it can be helpful. See #1. What is condescending is your attempting to assume a position of authority, presuming to instruct others as to what is and is not universally helpful--in direct contravention of the evidence staring you in the face. See #1. Open your mind to the possibility that your experiences are not universal, and things that you haven't found helpful may in fact be helpful to others. > > But your judgment regarding these issues is definitely impaired by your current state of mind. This is plain because you are not responding rationally. > You keep attacking me rather than the points I am making. No, I attacked your response, which was irrational. I then drew a conclusion about your state of mind based on your making an irrational response. Your words and yourself are not the same thing. > You are really not coming across positively by doing this. Do you mean that you don't like me? Or that I won't get as many upvotes as you unless I talk like you? Thank you for telling me! I'll be sure to adjust my performance for our audience. > It is completely toxic to a debate. So we're having a debate? Well then, what is actually toxic to a debate are these things you have done: 1. Ascribing to me thoughts, beliefs, and motivations which I have not exhibited. 2. Attacking me for other people's actions. 3. Doubling-down on those mistakes rather than admitting and correcting them. 4. Refusing to account for evidence which contradicts your assertions. > In fact the next four paragraphs are more the same dismissive crap without subtance. You've broken at least two of the site guidelines regarding charitable interpretations of another user's posts and addressing the point of their posts instead of shallow dismissals in the form of ad-hominem attacks on their character. I could also cite you for multiple violations of The Guidelines. I'll settle for admonishing you for the general "charitable interpretation" one, which should cover things like attacking your made-up image of me and blaming me for others' actions. If you stop breaking your rules, then you can complain. > You are only interested in being listened to, not in listening. That there, is the crux of my argument. You suck at reasoning with depressives, and apparently people who disagree with you. So you finally admit it: according to you, the crux of your argument is based entirely on your mind-reading me through the Internet. And you think you are an authority on reasoning with people! I rest my case. By the way, telling me that I suck is definitely against The Guidelines. It's also an ad hominem. I'm only telling you because, apparently, you aren't aware, otherwise you wouldn't have said that, right? > And in spite of me knowing nothing about you or your life, I'm comfortable making the assertion that you know nothing about this subject and have had very little exposure to people who do. If this were a debate, why would I need to argue after your saying this? Of what value is an admitted argument from ignorance? And why would I bother, since it shows that you are not arguing with me, but with your preconceived notions. By the way, it's not merely an assertion, it's an assumption. See #2. > That much is clear to me simply because you clearly have not the first idea of how to actually talk to someone with these kinds of issues. "I favor a different approach, therefore you know nothing and have no experience." Solid argument. Definitely a winning line in this "debate." If there's any rational part of your intellect available for talking to, that doesn't have a preformulated response ready, please pass this along: Notice a key distinction between us: I have never assumed your experiences or lack thereof. In fact, I have explicitly admitted my ignorance of them. In contrast, I have lost count of the number of times you have accused me of ignorance and assumed my experiences or lack thereof. You are not being rational, nor logical, nor (to the extent relevant) scientific You are simply regurgitating attacks against people who are not myself. Quite frankly, it's a waste of our time. Either step up to the plate, or go back to the dugout. Standing outside the batter's box, saying, "The pitcher made a face at me," swinging the bat, and circling the bases, doesn't count as a home run.