5 ms·

I am being antagonistic because I have the suspicion I'm being antagonised, though out of an abundance of (misplaced) goodwill. > suicide is a separate topic b

I am being antagonistic because I have the suspicion I'm being antagonised, though out of an abundance of (misplaced) goodwill. > suicide is a separate topic because it's a mental illness DanBC replied succinctly. I can't add to it. I'm getting badly uptight because ISTM you may have defined suicide into something you are morally required to intervene in, and prevent. From your orig post: "...given support to help enable them to grow into better people..." I'm afraid of people who may try to help me and make things worse. See my post about how helpful were towards gays not too long ago. Suicide has been attractive to me and is becoming attractive again. I DO NOT WANT any fucker trying to affect my choices 'for the better'. I'm afraid that may be you. I'm afraid you may have fallen exactly into the trap of defining 'better' outcomes in a way that disrespects the choices of others. From my fear, and partly my perceived presumption on your part but mostly from fear, comes anger borne not of aggression but defensiveness, hence the tone of my reply. In short, you scared me. I'm not mentally well right now (perhaps you'd care to look back over some of my prior posts) and I misjudge things, so please understand I'm struggling with what I may have mis-perceived in your words. You may not be saying at all what I read.

laumars 7y ago
> I'm getting badly uptight because ISTM you may have defined suicide into something you are morally required to intervene in, and prevent. From your orig post: "...given support to help enable them to grow into better people..." You're obsessing over one sentence, pulling it apart and taking it completely out of context - even after I have already clarified what I meant. I have repeatedly made the case that support for "at risk" people (in terms of criminal activity) should be non-interfearing and in a way that offers them choice. This is the exact opposite of the example you gave regarding the persecution of homosexuality. I've also said I'm not even going to engage in a debate about mental illness. I've supplied a link for you to read up on - if you want to know more. However if you do have suicidal thoughts then please do talk to someone - trust me, it helps. And even if you're not suicidal but generally feel like your mentally unwell, talk to someone. If you don't feel comfortable talking to a friend then there are also support contact details on that charity I linked to (https://mind.org.uk https://mind.org.uk). They wont interfere nor intervene. At least not unless you ask them to.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  I'm "pulling [that sentence] apart" because it's the very pivot point of the issue. The core, the crux, the interpretation of which is purely subjective, so where things can go bad. I actually agreed with some of your posts and upvoted 2 of them (edit: including the original one I replied to initially!) When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious. Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not. Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok. On the whole I agree with you. /Pace/
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - laumars 7y ago
    > I'm "pulling [that sentence] apart" because it's the very pivot point of the issue. The core, the crux, the interpretation of which is purely subjective, so where things can go bad. It's not the pivotal point and it's not subjective. There is an intended meaning which the author of that post, namely me, specifically wrote. That was then clarified in every subsequent post where you've repeatedly argued a contradictory meaning. Furthermore I would consider myself uniquely qualified to comment on what was meant in that post - and all other posts by me - because I specifically wrote them. So arguing with me - the author of those posts - about the meaning of those posts is just absurd beyond comprehension. Please stop it. > When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious. You don't need to tell me this - I wrote literally that in my very first post (and again in a subsequent post too). Hence why I keep saying that you're taking that sentence of out context when parade it around in isolation like you have. > Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not. No, I did not. I specifically and repeatedly said "I'm not going to argue about mental illness" - even after you directly asked me to talk about mental illness. I did suggest maybe you could benefit by talking to someone if you were sincere about your own mental health problems but I'm not forcing you to do that either (though I would recommend it - talking does genuinely help). > Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok. Again, I think I - of all people - am uniquely qualified to tell you what I meant and if I tell you that you've misunderstood me, then you have misunderstood me.

laumars 7y ago

> I'm getting badly uptight because ISTM you may have defined suicide into something you are morally required to intervene in, and prevent. From your orig post: "...given support to help enable them to grow into better people..." You're obsessing over one sentence, pulling it apart and taking it completely out of context - even after I have already clarified what I meant. I have repeatedly made the case that support for "at risk" people (in terms of criminal activity) should be non-interfearing and in a way that offers them choice. This is the exact opposite of the example you gave regarding the persecution of homosexuality. I've also said I'm not even going to engage in a debate about mental illness. I've supplied a link for you to read up on - if you want to know more. However if you do have suicidal thoughts then please do talk to someone - trust me, it helps. And even if you're not suicidal but generally feel like your mentally unwell, talk to someone. If you don't feel comfortable talking to a friend then there are also support contact details on that charity I linked to (https://mind.org.uk https://mind.org.uk). They wont interfere nor intervene. At least not unless you ask them to.

tempguy9999 7y ago
I'm "pulling [that sentence] apart" because it's the very pivot point of the issue. The core, the crux, the interpretation of which is purely subjective, so where things can go bad. I actually agreed with some of your posts and upvoted 2 of them (edit: including the original one I replied to initially!) When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious. Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not. Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok. On the whole I agree with you. /Pace/
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- laumars 7y ago
  > I'm "pulling [that sentence] apart" because it's the very pivot point of the issue. The core, the crux, the interpretation of which is purely subjective, so where things can go bad. It's not the pivotal point and it's not subjective. There is an intended meaning which the author of that post, namely me, specifically wrote. That was then clarified in every subsequent post where you've repeatedly argued a contradictory meaning. Furthermore I would consider myself uniquely qualified to comment on what was meant in that post - and all other posts by me - because I specifically wrote them. So arguing with me - the author of those posts - about the meaning of those posts is just absurd beyond comprehension. Please stop it. > When I was concerned about was the fine balance between helping and suddenly forcing 'for their own good', hence in my original post I said "That's ripe for abuse". I was not initially criticising you, just saying it's frightningly abusable; be cautious. You don't need to tell me this - I wrote literally that in my very first post (and again in a subsequent post too). Hence why I keep saying that you're taking that sentence of out context when parade it around in isolation like you have. > Then you posted this "That's [suicide is] a mental illness". Now it seemed you opened the door to 'helping' whether they liked it or not. No, I did not. I specifically and repeatedly said "I'm not going to argue about mental illness" - even after you directly asked me to talk about mental illness. I did suggest maybe you could benefit by talking to someone if you were sincere about your own mental health problems but I'm not forcing you to do that either (though I would recommend it - talking does genuinely help). > Maybe you didn't but that's how I read it, and it did not play well with me. I don't think you got how badly that scared me. Well, that's ok. Again, I think I - of all people - am uniquely qualified to tell you what I meant and if I tell you that you've misunderstood me, then you have misunderstood me.