2 ms·

Your counter arguments are basically the "slippery slope" fallacy in the sense that if we were to legalise suicide, it devolvles into chaos with no restrictions

Your counter arguments are basically the "slippery slope" fallacy in the sense that if we were to legalise suicide, it devolvles into chaos with no restrictions and people killing themselves because they saw an ad. Obviously I'm not advocating for that or the glorification of it but merely the option to if someone decides that they would rather not be alive instead of continuing to live. > Are you unswayed by testimonials... Are you unswayed by the people with multiple failed attempts that eventually succeed? Why did they want to leave so bad and why didn't we allow them to in a safe and guaranteed manner?

ikgdeeg 2y ago
I chose to reply to this comment because OP said: > These conversations usually turn into philosophical or religious arguments around life. I feel this is an absurd argument, as I listed, there are plenty of reasons to push back on this outside the purview of philosophy or religion. For instance, my mention of the predatory history of some medical interventions. And > My opinion is that suicide is completely valid and should not be stigmatized or illegal. OP said “completely valid” and I would argue in reality everyone has a “line”, and I was using extreme examples to illuminate that we all have this line and it is more productive to discuss where it lies than to assume we hold the only rationale position. It worked because you started to draw your line. Namely, your “not advocating for” advertisement, which I think is in opposition to the OPs “completely valid and not stigmatized” position. > Are you unswayed by the people with multiple failed attempts that eventually succeed? I’m open to hearing these. Do you have any resources? Do you think legality of the act should be based on the statistics of if positive or negative testimonials are more prominent?

ikgdeeg 2y ago

I chose to reply to this comment because OP said: > These conversations usually turn into philosophical or religious arguments around life. I feel this is an absurd argument, as I listed, there are plenty of reasons to push back on this outside the purview of philosophy or religion. For instance, my mention of the predatory history of some medical interventions. And > My opinion is that suicide is completely valid and should not be stigmatized or illegal. OP said “completely valid” and I would argue in reality everyone has a “line”, and I was using extreme examples to illuminate that we all have this line and it is more productive to discuss where it lies than to assume we hold the only rationale position. It worked because you started to draw your line. Namely, your “not advocating for” advertisement, which I think is in opposition to the OPs “completely valid and not stigmatized” position. > Are you unswayed by the people with multiple failed attempts that eventually succeed? I’m open to hearing these. Do you have any resources? Do you think legality of the act should be based on the statistics of if positive or negative testimonials are more prominent?