Suicide Victims are Cowards?

[EquALLity]

It's not a mental illness when they want it. See the first question.

And yes you have: the entire identity of "emo", which is based around romanticizing depression. When people internalize a quality as part of personal identity it becomes part of the self, and not some "other" that can be written off as mental illness.

When they want it? Where are you meeting these people who want to be depressed?

'Emo' is just a fad.

The autism spectrum is another good example:

What?
Are you saying that autism isn't a real medical condition too?

Or how about transexuality? Or people identifying as "furry"? Homosexuality? Are these mental illnesses too?

None of these things are akin to depression/anxiety, because they just aren't illnesses.

No. The only objective way to define a mental illness is if it's interfering with YOUR ability to live YOUR life in the way YOU want to live it -- not how other people think you should be living it.

By that logic, if you don't want to be gay, but you are, you're mentally ill.

These things can be measured and observed. Look at the difference between a regular brain and the brain of a person who has to deal with depression: http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedu ... g-20007400

Keep in mind, though: That does NOT mean I'm condoning something like depression; a person who chooses to be depressed and kill his or herself rather than seek to change is selfish. The same with autism; at least in extreme cases, it's not a good thing and it results in people who are a burden on society rather than productive. But it's not necessarily an illness unless those who experience it say it is, and that's a case-by-case thing.

What happened to people not being defined by one action? You just said that people who commit suicide are selfish people. You're not even just saying the actions are selfish anymore.
Do you think the same with anxiety? Soldiers who struggle with PTSD because they went through horrible and traumatic experiences are automatically cowards?

Yes, IF you identify it as part of you, rather than some foreign object that is an unwanted affliction.

I've never heard of anybody who wants a tumor.

You're missing the point. You don't get to define what qualities of personality or belief of others qualify as mental illnesses just because they're different from what you might think they should be.
Nobody gets to define that.

I know psychologists and psychiatrists try, and they're looking out for what seems to be (what they assume to be) in the best interest of their patients (and often the best interest of others in society), but when somebody doesn't want help, they don't get to define that either.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be 'treated' anyway (for the good of society, very often it should be), but when you're violating somebody's will to change something about him or herself that the person doesn't consider a disease, you have to consider that you're being more than a psychiatrist -- you are judge, jury, and executioner of a distinct personality and will, and the creator of a new one.

They're not just 'different from what I think they should be'; they're unhealthy and legitimate illnesses.

Just as correct. They may or may not be just as right morally, or they might be more right morally. That depends on the known consequences of the behavior. As it stands, without evidence, you can't say either way.

Again, is that about having more 'coward points', or flat out being a coward?
And what about people who have anxiety, but don't really let it control their behavior? If bravery is action in spite of fear, those people actually get 'brave points'.
Not to mention that it's an illness.

So to just automatically call people who have anxiety cowards by default is totally unfair.

You think it's questionable whether or not it's unethical to call people cowards for saying they have anxiety, and that it might actually be moral?
How would that be helping anyone?

No it isn't. And if I use your reasoning, they're mentally ill if I say they are, right?

Mental "illness" is not a disease in the more clear-cut way that HIV or a Strep infection is; it's not clearly identified as outside your own biology that interferes with a much more clear-cut picture of normal biological functionality.
We all exist on spectra of cognitive function on a number of different variables.

My reasoning isn't that people are mentally ill because I say so.

I think it is. See that link about depressed vs ordinary brains.

If they recognize that they are mentally ill, then it's an illness and they aren't responsible for it given that they are seeking help.
If they don't recognize the issue as an illness, but identify with it and see it as part of themselves, then it's not an illness and they are fully responsible for it.

How they see it isn't relevant to reality.

If they don't want it, they can make the choice to try to fix it and get help. Many people don't want help, or don't see it as an illness.

Again, where are you meeting people who want depression?

I don't know where it is. You might need to search "free will" to find where it's been discussed. Maybe in the deontology thread.

I can't get results for that, because 'free will' is too common a term.

The idea that a virtue, like bravery, makes you a good person, or a vice, like cowardice, makes you a bad person. It's what you do that counts.
You could very bravely blow yourself up and kill hundreds of people, and that wouldn't make you a good person.
You could be a total coward, and yet spend your life altruistically and avoiding harming others, and be a great person.

First you said that it means a good/bad quality determines if you're a good person, and then you said that it's what you do that counts.
So which?

Many people who are depressed don't see it as a problem, or don't recognize that their selfish actions (like suicide) may affect others -- or may not care. For those who are good people, a little criticism may wake them up.

If you don't think that stigma deters people from seeking help with their mental health problems, why did you say they were being cowardly not to seek help before?

They often know that society tells them to seek help, but they are selfish or indifferent and don't really think they need it, or even identify with it and don't want to change.

I said when they know that they should seek help (so not indifferent or content).
Why wouldn't they, other than stigma?

This is an argument from ignorance. "I can't think of anything else, so it's this".
You would need to present real evidence: that stigma is a problem, and that the kind of behavior we're talking about creates the stigma, and that the harm caused from that outweighs the good.
To the contrary, it may be precisely the kick in the balls some people need to get over themselves, think about others, and seek help for the good of those they care about.

Of course condemning people creates a stigma against them. Condemnation is what a stigma is.
Here's evidence that stigma prevents mentally ill people from seeking treatment: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... 129#cjotab_

Conclusions Stigma has a small- to moderate-sized negative effect on help-seeking. Review findings can be used to help inform the design of interventions to increase help-seeking.

Do you have evidence about your claims regarding depressed people and why they don't seek help?

Your perceptions are skewed by your atheism, you can't really consent to being an atheist?
This is a bad argument.

Atheism isn't a mental illness.

It's the same issue: Telling people not to say X because it's morally wrong, without evidence of that.

Yeah, but the arguments for each being wrong are different.

Physically, or hurt their feelings because they said a mean thing?

Both. Why should kids be allowed to make other kids feel like shit, causing mental scars, when it can be prevented?

No, because it doesn't force them to do anything. We're all influenced by things all day. All criminals are influenced by various emotional and environmental variables to do what they do, you can always find some tenuous link to something and blindly assert causality to free them from blame.

There's a difference between a legitimate illness and just being 'influenced' by something.

No, I'm saying advocating things like this is harmful to your ability to advocate other more important issues.
PC is very unpopular, and doesn't help you. There's not even evidence that it helps the people it's supposed to help (I'm more convinced that it does more harm than good).

Certain forms of political correctness are very unpopular in certain circles, sure.
But much of 'political correctness' is just telling people not to be overtly nasty (like telling people not to call people 'faggots' and 'niggers').
The anti-PC liberals aren't upset by this kind of political correctness. It's (from my experience) mostly about comedy and other forms of entertainment, and how people need to 'take a joke'.

I think you'd have a hard time finding many liberals who think that maybe we should promote stigmas against mentally ill people, and say that depression isn't even necessarily a mental illness. That's something I mostly hear coming from people like Michael Savage. Like this:

I am so sick and tired of everyone with their complaints about PTSD, depression. Everyone wants their hand held, and a check -- a government check. What are you, the only generation that had PTSD? The only generation that's depressed? I'm sick of it. I can't take the celebration of weakness and depression.

See, I was raised a little differently. I was raised to fight weakness. I was raised to fight pain. I was raised to fight depression. Not to give into it. Not to cave into it and cry like a little baby in bed. "Boo-hoo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo." Everyone has depression in their life. Everyone has sickness and sadness and disease. And loss of relatives. And loss of career. Everyone has depression in their life. But if the whole nation is told, "boo-hoo-hoo, come and get a medication, come and get treatment, talk about mental illness." You know what you wind up with? You wind up with Obama in the White House and liars in every phase of the government. That's what you wind up with. It's a weak, sick, nation. A weak, sick, broken nation. And you need men like me to save the country. You need men to stand up and say stop crying like a baby over everything. Stand up already. Stop telling me how sick you are and sad you are. Talk about the good things in your life.

When have you last heard that? Oh, everyone's holding their hand. "Oh, welcome to Good Morning America, sir. You almost committed suicide, how interesting. Please tell us your story." Maybe a young child who's on the edge can commit suicide. What a country. No wonder we're being laughed at around the world. No wonder ISIS can defeat our military. Take a look at that. Take a look at that, why people aren't even getting married anymore to have children. They don't even have the guts to raise a child. The men are so weak, and so narcissistic, all they want to do is have fun. Bunch of losers. Just go have a brewski and look at the 49ers, you idiot, you. They won't even get married, won't have a child, it takes too much of a man to do that. What a country. You're not a man, you're a dog. A dog raises babies better than most American men do.

Where are we right now?

There is a culture war going on, and there is a not insignificant movement in support of PC culture, but that's more or less as effective as supporting religion because there are still conservatives. It's on the losing side of the culture war, because it's advancing a faith based position against a swelling force of skepticism. The internet is where ideas come to spread, bullshit comes to die, and where free speech reins supreme.

This kind of political correctness is not just the other side of conservatism.
I agree that political correctness is often silly, but this isn't that form of political correctness.

[brimstoneSalad]

When they want it? Where are you meeting these people who want to be depressed?

'Emo' is just a fad.

People say homosexuality, transexuality, etc. are just fads too. And how about furry? That these are mental illnesses because they aren't normal.
Who gets to decide that something is a legitimate part of identity, or just a 'fad'? The majority? You? Or maybe the people who are experiencing it themselves.

The autism spectrum is another good example:

What?
Are you saying that autism isn't a real medical condition too?

Did you read the site I linked to before?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_rights_movement
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog ... r-disorder
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007 ... eandhealth
https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/mela ... f-advocacy

Everything is medical, but is it a disease to be cured, or is it just part of human psychological variation?
That's up to the person experiencing it. If somebody identifies with a quality, and doesn't want rid of it -- because it leaves him or her at ease as a person -- then does anybody else have the right to call it a disease?

Or how about transexuality? Or people identifying as "furry"? Homosexuality? Are these mental illnesses too?

None of these things are akin to depression/anxiety, because they just aren't illnesses.

So say you, but many fundamentalists disagree. Why are you right and they wrong? And why are you right here, and autistics and depressives wrong?
Or are you just appealing to authority in mainstream psychology?

By that logic, if you don't want to be gay, but you are, you're mentally ill.

Now you're getting it. If you have these feelings of sexual attraction to the same sex, but do not identify as gay and do not want them, then FOR YOU and YOU ALONE it is a disease. It makes you not at ease with your experiences.

However, since this "disease" is incurable, the best thing to do is probably to accept it as a part of you, in which case it stops being a disease and starts just being part of who you are.

The same claims are made about homosexuality, trans, autism, social anxiety, depression, etc.
Some of these things can be "cured" or "treated" effectively, and some can't be.

These things can be measured and observed. Look at the difference between a regular brain and the brain of a person who has to deal with depression: http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedu ... g-20007400

Or autism. Or atheism. Or faith. Or high IQ. Or low IQ. Or homosexuality. Or heterosexuality.

Anybody who is different from "normal" will show up as different in a brain scan. It's completely irrelevant that something can be measured and observed -- every facet of personality and thought can be. You can use a brain scan to figure out somebody is thinking of a particular shape, or animal, currently. Brain scans are just very good at looking at differences in people and thoughts; that doesn't mean anything.

Keep in mind, though: That does NOT mean I'm condoning something like depression; a person who chooses to be depressed and kill his or herself rather than seek to change is selfish. [...]

[...] You just said that people who commit suicide are selfish people. You're not even just saying the actions are selfish anymore.

Note the bolded word: choice. These people are being selfish in that particular choice -- other choices may be more selfless, and it's not necessarily clear from that alone which is greater.

Yes, IF you identify it as part of you, rather than some foreign object that is an unwanted affliction.

I've never heard of anybody who wants a tumor.

It's not that uncommon for people to want cancer, or to want to be sick in some other way.

There are cases where people want to be disabled or sick, and do it to themselves to achieve it:
http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/i-blinded- ... n-happier/
Here's somebody talking about really wanting to have cancer:
http://www.experienceproject.com/questi ... ve/1950460
And... just gets stigmatized by most people there.

Others refuse treatment for cancers or tumors because they want them, or don't care.
This is not the majority, but it does happen.

Human self-identity is a strange thing. Just as some people want to be a man/woman or a wolf/dragon or something, others want to be blind or to have cancer.

They're not just 'different from what I think they should be'; they're unhealthy and legitimate illnesses.

What makes it a "legitimate illness"? Because some "professional" said so? How about when homosexuality was?

What makes it "unhealthy"? Atheists and liberals often are reported to have poorer outlook on the world, and suffer more depression because of it than fundamentalists -- isn't that unhealthy? Should Atheism or Liberalism be a disease?

Who decides these things?

I'm saying the person with the condition gets to decide -- nobody else.

Again, is that about having more 'coward points', or flat out being a coward?
And what about people who have anxiety, but don't really let it control their behavior? If bravery is action in spite of fear, those people actually get 'brave points'.
Not to mention that it's an illness.

It's not an illness unless the one suffering from it says it is.
If somebody says it's an illness, and is fighting it, then acts in spite of the anxiety then that person would be brave.

Don't know what you're quoting about 'coward points', but certainly it is the sum of actions that speaks to character.

You think it's questionable whether or not it's unethical to call people cowards for saying they have anxiety, and that it might actually be moral?
How would that be helping anyone?

It could encourage them to change, or start taking the medication -- to identify it as a disease, and do the right thing and treat it, and to be brave instead of cowardly.

First you said that it means a good/bad quality determines if you're a good person, and then you said that it's what you do that counts.
So which?

It's your choice to identify with, or separate yourself from a good or bad quality, and make it something other than your self.

A. You have anxiety as a disease (not part of who you are) and are fighting it -- you are being brave, and struggling with a condition.
B. You ARE an anxious person, and have just accepted this as part of who you are -- you are cowardly.

The effect in terms of outside perspective may seem similar, but these are very different prospects from an existential viewpoint.

It's like the difference between a person who sees his or herself as ethical and vegan, but struggles with meat addition and is trying to quit (but failing at it), vs. an unapologetic carnist who relishes in consuming the same amount of meat and identifies as a proud meat eater.

The effect is similar, but the latter is a deplorable person at heart, and the former a good person at heart who is struggling with application.

If you don't think that stigma deters people from seeking help with their mental health problems, why did you say they were being cowardly not to seek help before?

See above. We shouldn't stigmatize people who admit to anxiety as a disease and are trying to overcome it, but rather people who choose to be anxious and have given up and accepted it as a part of themselves.

It's an easy thing to switch tracks mentally, and recognize you have a problem -- a disease, an outside force beyond your personality or control -- that you need help with, and it's the first and often most critical step.

I said when they know that they should seek help (so not indifferent or content).
Why wouldn't they, other than stigma?

We need to congratulate people for seeking help. Whether with anxiety or meat addiction.

They WERE cowards, or bad people -- but now they have had a change of heart and have become brave and good people at their cores, seeking to overcome these diseases/addictions.

To the same extent what we criticize people for being bad, we need to embrace them and congratulate them for that crucial change of mindset.

This is an argument from ignorance. "I can't think of anything else, so it's this".
You would need to present real evidence: that stigma is a problem, and that the kind of behavior we're talking about creates the stigma, and that the harm caused from that outweighs the good.
To the contrary, it may be precisely the kick in the balls some people need to get over themselves, think about others, and seek help for the good of those they care about.

You presented a limited amount of evidence for the first point. However, this is about stigmatizing people with a disease who are trying to get help (and that's very different).
I agree that we can't continue to stigmatize people once they try to seek help -- that would be like yelling at a reluctant meat eater who came here for help on quitting meat.
This is nothing like what I'm arguing. See the second point, and third.

Atheism isn't a mental illness.

According to you? Or an appeal to authority?
Is homosexuality? It used to be considered one.
Religion isn't considered a mental illness either -- but shouldn't it be if we're using rational criterion about realistic world views?

Psychology is a soft science; one of the softest, and strongly influenced by politics. What is or isn't a mental illness is highly subjective. The lines they draw in the sand do not reflect reality in any objective way.

Both. Why should kids be allowed to make other kids feel like shit, causing mental scars, when it can be prevented?

So end freedom of speech? You can't say anything without making somebody feel bad. How is this not a genuine slippery slope? We're having this problem with Muslims suing over libel to Islam already in other countries.

There's a difference between a legitimate illness and just being 'influenced' by something.

No, there isn't, because "legitimate illness" is meaningless. There's no legitimacy to these claims -- there can be none, because there's no real objective standard to judge them by. Only a person with a condition can decide if it's an illness.

I am so sick and tired of everyone with their complaints about PTSD, depression. Everyone wants their hand held, and a check -- a government check. What are you, the only generation that had PTSD? The only generation that's depressed? I'm sick of it. I can't take the celebration of weakness and depression.[...]But if the whole nation is told, "boo-hoo-hoo, come and get a medication, come and get treatment, talk about mental illness." You know what you wind up with? You wind up with Obama in the White House and liars in every phase of the government. That's what you wind up with. It's a weak, sick, nation. A weak, sick, broken nation. And you need men like me to save the country. You need men to stand up and say stop crying like a baby over everything. Stand up already. Stop telling me how sick you are and sad you are. Talk about the good things in your life.

He's stigmatizing people for seeking treatment. That is not remotely what I am saying. It's brave, not cowardly, to get help when you need it.

[EquALLity]

Alright, I concede that it's subjective.
I still disagree with a lot of this, though.

Note the bolded word: choice. These people are being selfish in that particular choice -- other choices may be more selfless, and it's not necessarily clear from that alone which is greater.

Well, you called them selfish people.

But if you meant that the action was selfish, and not necessarily them as people, then never mind.

What makes it "unhealthy"? Atheists and liberals often are reported to have poorer outlook on the world, and suffer more depression because of it than fundamentalists -- isn't that unhealthy? Should Atheism or Liberalism be a disease?

That's different, because neither atheism nor liberalism are delusional in and of themselves.

Don't know what you're quoting about 'coward points', but certainly it is the sum of actions that speaks to character.

Coward points = things that make you more cowardly than you would have been without them (not necessarily a coward).

It could encourage them to change, or start taking the medication -- to identify it as a disease, and do the right thing and treat it, and to be brave instead of cowardly.

It's not "It's cowardly not to seek treatment", it's "You're a coward because you have anxiety".

Why would they take from that that it's ok as long as they seek treatment?

t's your choice to identify with, or separate yourself from a good or bad quality, and make it something other than your self.

A. You have anxiety as a disease (not part of who you are) and are fighting it -- you are being brave, and struggling with a condition.
B. You ARE an anxious person, and have just accepted this as part of who you are -- you are cowardly.

Alright... If people want mental illnesses, then fine, they're not mental illnesses.
But I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people do not want mental illnesses.

I don't know where you're finding people who consider it part of their personality that they have depression.
The reason I say 'emo' is a fad is because, from what I've seen, it's just people trying to be 'edgy'.

See above. We shouldn't stigmatize people who admit to anxiety as a disease and are trying to overcome it, but rather people who choose to be anxious and have given up and accepted it as a part of themselves.

It's an easy thing to switch tracks mentally, and recognize you have a problem -- a disease, an outside force beyond your personality or control -- that you need help with, and it's the first and often most critical step.

I don't think we should stigmatize them.
According to current information, it is harmful to stigmatize people with mental illnesses in that it prevents them from seeking treatment.

They WERE cowards, or bad people -- but now they have had a change of heart and have become brave and good people at their cores, seeking to overcome these diseases/addictions.

So they weren't sometimes cowardly, they were at core cowards? Is that what you're saying?

And what about people who don't have access to treatment? Maybe they're in situations where it's very difficult (like they can't really afford it).

You presented a limited amount of evidence for the first point. However, this is about stigmatizing people with a disease who are trying to get help (and that's very different).
I agree that we can't continue to stigmatize people once they try to seek help -- that would be like yelling at a reluctant meat eater who came here for help on quitting meat.
This is nothing like what I'm arguing. See the second point, and third.

Very little evidence? I linked a study.

It's not about stigmatizing people who are seeking help; it's about people not seeking help in the first place because of stigma.

So end freedom of speech? You can't say anything without making somebody feel bad. How is this not a genuine slippery slope? We're having this problem with Muslims suing over libel to Islam already in other countries.

End freedom of speech? O_O

There's a difference between just saying things that might offend people (critiquing Islam) and saying things that are clearly intended to harm people (AKA bullying).
Why should kids be allowed to bully other kids? How is that doing anything but harm people?
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-s ... story.html

How is this any different from the gays and cakes issue?
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=17&t=799
Why shouldn't businesses be allowed to discriminate against gay people? Freedom!
And if that is harmful to gay people, whatever. According to the golem effect, we apparently shouldn't side with them, because it promotes sensitivity.

And this is kind of odd coming from someone who is actually against freedom of speech. You don't even believe in the free exchange of ideas. How is that not a slippery slope, but not letting kids be assholes (causing long term emotional problems) in school is?

[brimstoneSalad]

That's different, because neither atheism nor liberalism are delusional in and of themselves.

Scientific accuracy isn't the metric mental health professionals use, though; if it were, the vast majority of people would be considered to have mental illnesses. It's some vague notion of "well being" and health, in terms of how your attitudes affect you. It's a poor metric, because it says nothing about those attitudes being desirable, or what other GOOD consequences they have on society aside from the localized (and minor) negative effect.

Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant, it's harmful to the rest of us.

It's not "It's cowardly not to seek treatment", it's "You're a coward because you have anxiety".

Why would they take from that that it's ok as long as they seek treatment?

It depends on how you phrase it.

But I'm pretty sure that the overwhelming majority of people do not want mental illnesses.

Yes, but at that point it's just a popularity contest. Most people don't want to lose faith in their religious beliefs either.

The reason I say 'emo' is a fad is because, from what I've seen, it's just people trying to be 'edgy'.

Well, I'm just taking what they say at face value. I don't think it's fair to categorize and dismiss it as a fad.

According to current information, it is harmful to stigmatize people with mental illnesses in that it prevents them from seeking treatment.

It's harmful to stigmatize people for just having a mental illness, but that's not what I'm encouraging.

So they weren't sometimes cowardly, they were at core cowards? Is that what you're saying?

It's about the way you present the information.

And what about people who don't have access to treatment? Maybe they're in situations where it's very difficult (like they can't really afford it).

They're victims of the disease.

It's not about stigmatizing people who are seeking help; it's about people not seeking help in the first place because of stigma.

It's a stigma against people with mental illnesses even when they're getting treatment -- that's a stigma that should not exist. We should congratulate people seeking treatment as brave.

There's a difference between just saying things that might offend people (critiquing Islam) and saying things that are clearly intended to harm people (AKA bullying).
Why should kids be allowed to bully other kids? How is that doing anything but harm people?
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-s ... story.html

The concern is about who will be the judge when it comes to what hurts somebody's feeling and what doesn't.

How is this any different from the gays and cakes issue?
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=17&t=799

That's a material issue that doesn't have problems with judgement of what's offensive or not. Like I said, they can hang anti-gay slogans in their stores, but they still have to serve the customers.

Why shouldn't businesses be allowed to discriminate against gay people? Freedom!

It can certainly be looked at that way. But this is a case of a freedom that's easy to restrict without a slippery slope problem, or one of finding some kind of metric by which to judge what's offensive.

If you can find a mechanism to restrict bullying without causing problems with a witch hunt, or difficulty in judging something as offensive or not with subjective standards, I'd be open to that.
Unlike the rule that you have to serve customers, directly restricting free speech is much more difficult.

Now if you gave somebody a sesame-like niceness score, and let people review each other, that might work. Aggregated reviews could be normalized based on standards set up by neural networks to identify demographics of thought. That could be really great for schools.

And this is kind of odd coming from someone who is actually against freedom of speech. You don't even believe in the free exchange of ideas.

Right, but only when you can draw clear lines. Like the difference between science and pseudoscience. The issue with offense is it is highly subjective, and it's possible to make the problem worse by trying to police it, or giving people who are sensitive extra power and encouraging sensitivity.

[_Doc]

You cannot really say anyone who commits suicide is being a coward, selfish, brave, ect. since all those are emotions (at least I consider them to be) . Emotions are something only the person experiencing them can tell if they feel that way. Yes, you can find examples of people committing suicide for any emotional reason but, all suicides cannot be labeled with a single emotion. For example, in Japanese history if a samurai had committed an action in which resulted in his execution. They could do the honorable suicide called "Seppuku" and this was considered Brave. Also, what about suicidal bombers? They kill them self's for their belief (most of the time) and they truly think that they are going to their heaven. I do not see how someone killing them self's for what they feel to be "holly" or "just" to cowardly (I guess you could argue that they chose the easy way out but, they may not feel that way). Now if just simply must put a label on people who commit suicide then call them what they are "suicidal" .

[EquALLity]

It depends on how you phrase it.

You'd have to specifically suggest treatment as a solution for it to be clear.

Yes, but at that point it's just a popularity contest. Most people don't want to lose faith in their religious beliefs either.

Yeah, I'm not saying that depression is always an illness because most people would consider it one. I'm saying that it's an illness in most cases, because most people perceive it that way (and that's what matters).

Well, I'm just taking what they say at face value. I don't think it's fair to categorize and dismiss it as a fad.

I say it's a fad is because it's characterized by 'edgy' clothing and hairstyles, and punk music. I'm not just making assumptions.

It's harmful to stigmatize people for just having a mental illness, but that's not what I'm encouraging.

That's not what the study says. The conclusion is:

'Conclusions Stigma has a small- to moderate-sized negative effect on help-seeking. Review findings can be used to help inform the design of interventions to increase help-seeking.'
It says specifically that stigma prevents people from seeking treatment.

It's not about mentally ill people in general, including those who are seeking treatment... Because they are already seeking treatment. Stigma couldn't prevent them from seeking treatment if they are already doing it.
It's about why people don't seek treatment.

It's about the way you present the information.

In what way do you mean?

It's a stigma against people with mental illnesses even when they're getting treatment -- that's a stigma that should not exist. We should congratulate people seeking treatment as brave.

That doesn't make sense given the conclusion.

The concern is about who will be the judge when it comes to what hurts somebody's feeling and what doesn't.

It's not about 'what will hurt people's feelings'; it's about what's intended to intimidate/attack people.
It's pretty obvious that spreading rumors/calling people fat etc. are bullying, while stating an opinion about some kind of world issue others might disagree with isn't.

You're not hurting freedom of speech by preventing students from literally bullying (again, causing emotional scars and massively increasing risk for mental illness) other students.

It baffles me that, acknowledging that you don't support freedom of speech, and while arguing against the free exchange of ideas, you are arguing that bullying should be permitted in schools because otherwise we'd be hurting freedom of speech.
And also because of the golem effect, but I find it really bizarre that you're bringing up free speech regarding this.

Unlike the rule that you have to serve customers, directly restricting free speech is much more difficult.

Really odd coming from someone who thinks that, ideally, people shouldn't be allowed to debate religion because it's false.

Verbal bullying is really similar to the inciting of violence, in many cases. You can't walk up to someone and personally attack that person, for example. There's not a gray area there.

Right, but only when you can draw clear lines. Like the difference between science and pseudoscience. The issue with offense is it is highly subjective,

I don't think you can draw that line in practice without harmful consequences. Who decides what ideas are to be banned and which aren't?

Bullying is different. It's obvious what's picking on someone vs. what's expressing an honest political position, or something.

and it's possible to make the problem worse by trying to police it, or giving people who are sensitive extra power and encouraging sensitivity.

How would stopping kids from being dicks make more kids be dicks?

And how is it giving them extra power, or encouraging sensitivity?
It's acknowledging the reality that people, especially really young kids, will be hurt if you treat them like shit. Why should we let people bully others? Who is it helping? It's harmful to the bully, to the victim, and to the bystanders. Nobody is being helped in that situation; it's only harmful. So why allow it?

I could see why you'd allow it if the consequences of trying to stop it are worse than the consequences of letting it be, but I don't see why that would be the case.

[brimstoneSalad]

It depends on how you phrase it.

You'd have to specifically suggest treatment as a solution for it to be clear.

Then when somebody says something like "suicide is cowardly", you should reply with something like "Maybe, but don't you agree that seeking treatment for depression is brave?".

If you just negate what the person says, then not only are you likely wrong on a factual point, but he or she will just continue to say it without understanding how to qualify it to be more helpful.

I say it's a fad is because it's characterized by 'edgy' clothing and hairstyles, and punk music. I'm not just making assumptions.

Not all people who identify as Emo are all about that stuff.

'Conclusions Stigma has a small- to moderate-sized negative effect on help-seeking. Review findings can be used to help inform the design of interventions to increase help-seeking.'
It says specifically that stigma prevents people from seeking treatment.

I know, I read that. What KIND of stigma? Does stigma against mass murderers prevent people from seeking treatment for depression? Does stigma against clowns prevent non-clowns from seeking treatment for anxiety about social situations?

It's not just "any stigma" -- that doesn't make any sense -- it's specifically a stigma that applies to simply having depression, or seeking treatment.

Otherwise, you'd be arguing that we shouldn't stigmatize animal cruelty, because it might prevent people from seeing treatment for bipolar disorder, when it has nothing to do with the disorder.

It's not about mentally ill people in general, including those who are seeking treatment... Because they are already seeking treatment. Stigma couldn't prevent them from seeking treatment if they are already doing it.
It's about why people don't seek treatment.

People are afraid to seek treatment because it means admitting they have depression and seeing a therapist, and if people with depression are stigmatized -- or people seeing therapists are stigmatized -- they don't want to be put in that box and be subject to being stigmatized.

In what way do you mean?

See the top of this post.

That doesn't make sense given the conclusion.

I think you have misread the study.

It's not about 'what will hurt people's feelings'; it's about what's intended to intimidate/attack people.

Then it's he said she said. Did you intend to attack him? No. Did she intent to attack you? Yes. One says yes, one says no. Just a big misunderstanding.

It's pretty obvious that spreading rumors/calling people fat etc. are bullying, while stating an opinion about some kind of world issue others might disagree with isn't.

What if it was done out of concern? What if it's legitimate criticism?

If people are torturing a cat in front of you, you'd better not call them mean or suggest they are cruel to animals, since it might hurt their feelings. Right?
There are legitimate reasons to criticize people. And some your teachers might not agree with.

It baffles me that, acknowledging that you don't support freedom of speech, and while arguing against the free exchange of ideas, you are arguing that bullying should be permitted in schools because otherwise we'd be hurting freedom of speech.

It's because there's no way to limit that without restricting legitimately important speech -- like criticizing people for their actions, or expressing concern for a peer.

There are things that I would say, without it being the intent to bully but rather persuade, that would be banned under any such provision.
Invent a provision that will allow me to say anything I might legitimately need to say while effectively squashing mean spirited bullying, and I'll be behind it.

Really odd coming from someone who thinks that, ideally, people shouldn't be allowed to debate religion because it's false.

Religion is empirically and logically false.
Informing somebody that he or she is overweight can be empirically true.

I don't think you can draw that line in practice without harmful consequences. Who decides what ideas are to be banned and which aren't?

You have to rely on an authority with a scientific world view. Science is the most objective and bias free standard you will find, which is the only reason I'd trust it.

Bullying is different. It's obvious what's picking on someone vs. what's expressing an honest political position, or something.

Nope, quite the opposite: It's much more subjective. There is no formal logic which will prove it on paper, and there is no instrument available to measure it.

This is why in Christian schools, for example, Christian teachers allow Christian students to bully atheist students by telling them they're going to hell, etc. but will discipline an atheist student severely for saying anything in reply.

You see that kind of bias on forums too, when the prevailing mindset is interrupted; lots of one-sided moderation (not intentional, but as a result of a bias in perception).
As an atheist, you may have experienced that on other forums, where you have to walk on egg shells, but the theists can let it all out at you. If not, you should probably have a try, and see how one sided it gets even when the moderators think they're upholding an impartial position and being even handed -- they will see things you say as attacks when they are not, and they will see things theists say in attack as just poorly worded but well-intentioned.

It's not obvious, and the judges are highly subject to bias on these issues. This has been my experience throughout life, and it's a big problem in research on psychology (evaluation being so subject to bias). Minorities need fear bias.

I don't have time at the moment, but try to look up some studies on bias in psychology when it comes to attitude or tone/interpretation of what people say.

And how is it giving them extra power, or encouraging sensitivity?

Looks at the litigation Jihad, and the political over-sensitivity to Muslims generally in the liberal media.

It's acknowledging the reality that people, especially really young kids, will be hurt if you treat them like shit. Why should we let people bully others? Who is it helping? It's harmful to the bully, to the victim, and to the bystanders. Nobody is being helped in that situation; it's only harmful. So why allow it?

I won't want to allow it, but we must because we can't stop it without interfering with more important things (and I don't think mechanisms in place trying to stop it are useful).

I could see why you'd allow it if the consequences of trying to stop it are worse than the consequences of letting it be, but I don't see why that would be the case.

Bingo. I see it as both being practically impossible to actually stop, and the consequences of trying to stop it being far worse than leaving things alone.

Look around on forums with different moderation policies. Compare forums with strict moderation (like veggieboards) to here, and look at what kinds of critical thinking skills are being fostered in both places.

I think it's dangerous to child development to employ the methods desired to stop bullying, and I don't think it would work either.

You'd need to come up with some kind of revolutionary method that effectively limited bullying without stifling expression.

Now if all of the teachers and administrative staff were atheists and vegans, then I'd probably be fine with whatever policy you wanted in place, since the bias would only be against the carnist and theist kids, and nobody sharing good ideas or providing legitimate criticism would be stifled; although it may still destroy the potential for important education on critical thinking by creating an echo chamber.

[death_by_rage]

Suicide is the most selfish act one can do. You are neglecting all responsibilities and taking the Pussy way out. Grow a pair and deal with your shit you Fucking coward. You are only causing pain to the ones who love you. Just think about your mother who did everything she could to raise you, or your sibling who looked up to you, imagine them walking into your garage or bedroom to see your lifeless body hanging there. Think about one other person. You are going to traumatize someone for the rest of their life, because you are a selfish Asshole. Who would rather die than to grow the Fuck up and take care of your problems. Fuck you suicidal bitches. I'm gonna live until I can no longer fight to live... I hope I'm 100+ years old and still smiling while you are a pile of decomposed forgotten waste of misery.

[EquALLity]

^I see I was right about the PC thing for you.

When many people (like you) say, "I'm so sick of this PC culture", they seem to really mean, "Blah, why are people like telling me not to be like a huge dick anymore?!"

Suicidal people are not selfish and cowards. That's insane. You can't be selfish/a coward just for having certain thoughts.
Actually committing suicide may be cowardly or selfish, but that doesn't make suicide victims cowards or selfish people.

And don't you literally kill animals for personal pleasure?
But suicidal people are selfish for thought-crimes, right?

[death_by_rage]

Talking out your ass does not make you appear smart... It's just an illusion you have of yourself. If you want to kill yourself, stop begging for attention and do it. I talked one person out of suicide before and I'll never do that again. "Attention Whore" is the term I think you are looking for.