[Intellectual Discussion] Your enemy's enemy is your friend (plus mini-rant)

  • Welcome to Sanctioned Suicide, a pro-choice forum for the discussion of mental illness, suicide, and the moral implications of the act itself. This is not a pro-suicide site. We do not encourage or aid suicide, and the information offered is for educational purposes only. Read our rules and FAQ for more information. We also offer a recovery subforum if you wish to get support.

    You can close this box by clicking the top right "X".

  • There's a new bill going through the US Congress that will allow the US government to scan your online messages and emails. We feel it's important for our members to be informed of threats to free speech and the EARN IT Act, if passed into law, it could be used to take down smaller platforms or websites with little or no reason including this website. This is an obvious overreach by the US government that already abuses it power as is and it shouldn't stand.
thrw_a_way1221221

thrw_a_way1221221

Angel of Choice - on borrowed time.
Aug 30, 2018
4,093
13,259
First of all, I want to thank Serge and Marquis for the creation of this space for us pro-choicers to be able to freely discuss about suicide without censorship, fear of repercussions and other undesirable consequences (including but not limited to: social ostracization, financial suicide, involuntary force, and other unwanted civil and social consequences). As most of us know, we are pro-choicers, meaning that we respect others' right to choose between living or CTB'ing. We are perhaps one of the most alienated, persecuted, and one of the smallest groups in the world (at least on the grand scheme of things). We also have the least amounts of legal protections in practice when it comes to the society in which we live in. The majority of the world out there at least, is pro-life, meaning that they are against CTB, including the people (pro-choicers, us) who allow and respect others choice between life or death. Then there are us, who are a minority of the minority of people in the world, (pro-choicers), and finally another chunk of the world, least common one, the pro-CTB'ers/death group.

So respectively (and this is just some rough numbers I picked (just for discussion purposes) out), let's say that the vast majority of the world is pro-life, anti-suicide, anti-choice standing around 80%, then about 18% of the population is pro-choice (us and similar like people with similar stances), and finally 2% who are pro-death, meaning that they wish to see the world burn, wish death, and/or other things.

Disclaimer: this is just an intellectual discussion for educational purposes. I do not endorse, nor condone the acts of said perpetrators or similar groups committing illegal acts.

Now with that said and done, I'm sure most of us have heard the phrase, "Your enemy's enemy is your friend.", (or similar variant) which means that even though the other enemy (pro-deathers is the antithesis of pro-lifers) is also opposed to our cause, we both share a common enemy, pro-lifers. Based on that old proverb, the pro-deathers (those who are pro-death) wish to rob those people (pro-lifers and sometimes pro-choicers, which is 'us') of the choice to 'live', why are we opposed to them and condemning them just the same as we do to that of pro-lifers? These (pro-lifers) are the same people who would seek to strip us of our freedom and choice to choose between life or death and force life onto everyone regardless of the situation or what they think. They are essentially gatekeepers of one's fate and destiny, similarly to that of the pro-deathers. Given the circumstances, wouldn't it make more sense to regard (not support nor endorse) that pro-deathers are in a sense combating against pro-lifers and fighting our common enemy (the pro-lifers) even if we still oppose them due to their stance?

Mini rant: Society ignores the liberty, civil rights, and freedom of the 'suicidal' and simply treats them like criminals, animals, and/or children.
I have a problem with how society treats the 'suicidal' people by stripping them of their rights, civil liberties, freedom, and what not, then treat them like animals, children, and/or criminals (despite many of them having committed no crime nor broken any laws). In a sense, they are treated as though they are guilt until proven innocent. It is ironic that normally non-suicidal people (including suspected criminals, and sometimes even convicts to a lesser degree) have their civil rights intact, credibility, dignity, and what not all together. It makes my blood boil how all the rights and legal protections that are afforded to most people are suddenly stripped away from the 'suicidal' person, such as right to privacy, right to freedom of movement, right to be free from violent force, and even more so cruel and unusual punishment are just ignored and bypassed simply for the fact that the person is suicidal and deemed irrational (thus losing all credibility and their own defense and testimony is considered tainted, putting them in a more dire predicament than that of suspected criminals even).

At the minimum, if we apply the same logic and laws to that of a non-suicidal person, the state and society already committed multiple crimes, not limited to: stalking and harrassment (keeping tabs and monitoring, tracking the person's activities), kidnapping (forcibly removing and detaining the person against his/her will) and false imprisonment (locking them up in a detention center/ER/psych ward), and then cruel and unusual punishment (mistreatment at the hospital and/or various psych wards, and don't forget the monstrous medical bill for 'forced/coerced services' that the patient never agreed to or agreed to under duress). (Note: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice but just my interpretation of the situation.)

But the irony of all this is that ALL of this is legal, which only makes me angrier at the fucked up society as well as mourn for the mistreated suicidal person. I have posted in various threads in the past lambasting and condemning involuntary force, hoping to abolish it, especially for the suicidal person, especially if they pose NO threat to others other than him/herself. I'd vow that if I were ever victim to such a prohibitionist system and been treated like that, it will definitely be over for me, no questions asked, perhaps I might even get a little bit of 'legal' recourse before checking out..

So with that said, what are your thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
Iloveyouall

Iloveyouall

Wise
Feb 12, 2020
256
346

I understand your point in saying pro-lifers are your enemies but if you don't consider what you talked about the legal consequences of being suicidal, pro-lifers are mostly ignorant of suicidal people feelings and situations. Of course I'm not talking about crazy pro-life religious people here as some of their behavior tend to be not much but cruel and almost sadist. I'm talking about average people who just don't understand because they don't take the time to and are just basically ignorant of the suffering of others. One of their favorite quote being "those people don't need suicide, they need help", of course suicidal persons need help but there is nothing efficient made to provide them help and none of those who are saying that are going to do anything themselves because they think helping structures already exists. It's kinda the same reasoning with ecology, they say "we count on governments to save the planet" but this is just ridiculous as they are totally ignorant that governments are hands tied by corporations and that the power of those latter is in the hand of those same ignorant who buy useless shit every single day.

Sorry I feel I'm kinda off the subject here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thrw_a_way1221221
N

NotMeant2B

Member
Sep 26, 2019
72
180
the pro-deathers (those who are pro-death) wish to rob those people (pro-lifers and sometimes pro-choicers, which is 'us') of the choice to 'live', why are we opposed to them and condemning them just the same as we do to that of pro-lifers?
Because our antithesis is "anti-choice", not "pro-life". Our stance is in a freedom to decide on and carry out, in a dignifying manner, our own self-deliverance. Nothing more, nothing less. However, getting involved with other kind of movement that do not share our goals, just for the sake of "winning" against pro-lifers, may (and will) only result in a loss of credibility towards our own movement and its eventual detriment.

Other than that, I agree with you, although I wouldn't go as far as to say that the injustice acts inflicted upon suicidal people are crimes, but they are indeed a proof of abuse driven by misunderstanding, neglect and unfounded hatred -- just as any minority group had experienced during the time that humanity reach the level of maturity to give it the attention that it deserve. Though we have to acknowledge the cases in which these minorities have experienced real crimes against humanity like slavery, genocide and torture.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.
 
thrw_a_way1221221

thrw_a_way1221221

Angel of Choice - on borrowed time.
Aug 30, 2018
4,093
13,259

I understand your point in saying pro-lifers are your enemies but if you don't consider what you talked about the legal consequences of being suicidal, pro-lifers are mostly ignorant of suicidal people feelings and situations. Of course I'm not talking about crazy pro-life religious people here as some of their behavior tend to be not much but cruel and almost sadist. I'm talking about average people who just don't understand because they don't take the time to and are just basically ignorant of the suffering of others. One of their favorite quote being "those people don't need suicide, they need help", of course suicidal persons need help but there is nothing efficient made to provide them help and none of those who are saying that are going to do anything themselves because they think helping structures already exists. It's kinda the same reasoning with ecology, they say "we count on governments to save the planet" but this is just ridiculous as they are totally ignorant that governments are hands tied by corporations and that the power of those latter is in the hand of those same ignorant who buy useless shit every single day.

Sorry I feel I'm kinda off the subject here.
That is a funny picture you attached and very true. We humans are essentially government property in the eyes of the government and society's kicking/punching bag. The irony is that if we are government property and alive just to serve, feed, and contribute to society (as well as the system), then what about NEETS and those who don't have jobs nor have enough money (the impoverished and homeless)? It simply doesn't make sense that if the government needs people to work and contribute to the system, they still don't allow those who aren't contributing nor making an effort or wanting to contribute to society to just CTB, but rather that they die of other causes such as infirmity, homelessness, and other causes.

I think of most masses as ignorant too so I can forgive that aspect of their character and logic, however, what I don't understand nor forgive is their ignorance and lack of wanting to 'understand' or relate to us. Instead they have their preconceived notions about life and they bully us into submission or until we accept their (shitty) stance and they are very misguided. If there was a way to get them to open up their mind and question their beliefs as well as consider other points of view, then that would be great. On a slightly similar but different point, more people are open to allowing terminally ill patients to gain a dignified, peaceful exit (voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide) but the criterion for such patients is very strict and almost impossible to get approved for (even in states that have death with dignity laws). Also, having the government, society, and medical professionals (doctors, psychologists, and physicians) gatekeep as well as dictate who qualifies and who doesn't still opposes our pro-choice stance.

Because our antithesis is "anti-choice", not "pro-life". Our stance is in a freedom to decide on and carry out, in a dignifying manner, our own self-deliverance. Nothing more, nothing less. However, getting involved with other kind of movement that do not share our goals, just for the sake of "winning" against pro-lifers, may (and will) only result in a loss of credibility towards our own movement and its eventual detriment.

Other than that, I agree with you, although I wouldn't go as far as to say that the injustice acts inflicted upon suicidal people are crimes, but they are indeed a proof of abuse driven by misunderstanding, neglect and unfounded hatred -- just as any minority group had experienced during the time that humanity reach the level of maturity to give it the attention that it deserve. Though we have to acknowledge the cases in which these minorities have experienced real crimes against humanity like slavery, genocide and torture.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Good thorough response and I would say that in a sense, I do share a hint of "giving society a taste of it's own medicine" (pro-lifers take away our choice to have a dignified death through self-deliverance, and pro-deathers take away their choice to live their supposedly 'good' life.) mentality which is why I think of such a question. But back to the point, yes, for pragmatic purposes, you are correct that the "other" movements, particularly ones that are more extreme would potentially result in more misunderstanding and loss of credibility even though the majority are our enemy and oppose us.

With respect to the abuses and CURRENT treatment, process and procedure of dealing with suicidal people, yes, a lot of it has to deal with ignorance, misunderstanding, and of course, the refusal to see the other side and go with the hive mind (people at the top are pro-life and it extends to the people below the 'rulers' or people in charge). Personally, I believe that involuntary commitment especially for those who are only a threat to themselves and themselves only (no other immediate or imminent threat towards others), should be left alone. I know that first responders, law enforcement, and medical/healthcare professionals don't just leave the suicidal alone due to fear of public backlash and lawsuits, which is why I believe reform is necessary. To start things off, make a law that exempts them (first responders, law enforcement, and medical/healthcare professionals) from mandatory intervention/care so that way they don't get hit by legal action/lawsuits for inaction/no intervention. Then allow the suicidal (especially if they are wrongly held/locked up/detained and suffered inconveniences or other harm (psychological or physical) to be able to have more access to seek legal remedies and redress, should they find themselves being mistreated or abused by the legal and medical/healthcare system. I don't mean the current system that we have (just patient rights advocates and very few lawyers taking up such cases to civil court), but additional resources and services for those who have been unfairly treated, wrongfully imprisoned, and what not. However, the latter part is for another topic altogether. Nevertheless, I do believe we definitely need a reform in the healthcare system as well as how we deal with the suicidal.

Society: selfishness is a virtue
Also society: OMG SUICIDE IS SELFISH THINK ABOUT YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS
Essentially a logical contradiction, double-standard, incongruity, etc., oh but wait, society doesn't care, it basically decides it can make and break it's own rules, just do whatever, which is one other reason for me resenting society itself. Truth be told though, there is just no logic to society's inconsistencies and madness.
Oh and on another note, there are still quite a few societies that still hold the death penalty in it's judicial sentencing for convicted criminals, which is ironic since they are against suicide, but have no problems with executing a convicted criminal.Society is basically just whatever it feels like and sometimes I'm starting to think that people just do whatever they feel like, selfish or not, make sense or not, logical or illogical, they "just" don't care, which also fuels my misanthropy (a whole different topic from this).
 
Last edited:
Iloveyouall

Iloveyouall

Wise
Feb 12, 2020
256
346
That is a funny picture you attached and very true. We humans are essentially government property in the eyes of the government and society's kicking/punching bag. The irony is that if we are government property and alive just to serve, feed, and contribute to society (as well as the system), then what about NEETS and those who don't have jobs nor have enough money (the impoverished and homeless)? It simply doesn't make sense that if the government needs people to work and contribute to the system, they still don't allow those who aren't contributing nor making an effort or wanting to contribute to society to just CTB, but rather that they die of other causes such as infirmity, homelessness, and other causes.
Those people are pretty useful for the gov. They are here to pressure mentally by fear every productive member to not fuck up or they are going to end up like those.

I think of most masses as ignorant too so I can forgive that aspect of their character and logic, however, what I don't understand nor forgive is their ignorance and lack of wanting to 'understand' or relate to us. Instead they have their preconceived notions about life and they bully us into submission or until we accept their (shitty) stance and they are very misguided. If there was a way to get them to open up their mind and question their beliefs as well as consider other points of view, then that would be great.
If people were nice and open minded, world wouldn't suck.
I guess the only solution would be to open up fully about the suffering to break their preconceptions about life and the world itself but that wouldn't be easy as some might say something related to my previous answer "at least you're not homeless, at least you're not an infirm, at least you're not a starving child in Africa"

On a slightly similar but different point, more people are open to allowing terminally ill patients to gain a dignified, peaceful exit (voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide) but the criterion for such patients is very strict and almost impossible to get approved for (even in states that have death with dignity laws). Also, having the government, society, and medical professionals (doctors, psychologists, and physicians) gatekeep as well as dictate who qualifies and who doesn't still opposes our pro-choice stance.
Because people can imagine ending up in that state because of "bad luck". Gov is very strict because if you can be useful as a scarecrow like I said previously, then you have to live.
 
thrw_a_way1221221

thrw_a_way1221221

Angel of Choice - on borrowed time.
Aug 30, 2018
4,093
13,259
I'm confused by the title.
It is a quote of a common proverb, but I'm using it to lead into an intellectual discussion, especially about the multiple sides of choicers, lifers, and deathers (I sorta just made up that word). I wished I had a better title, but it probably would have been way to long and confusing so I just went with the proverb.
 
PhilosOfDoom

PhilosOfDoom

Veteran
Nov 22, 2019
178
138
Wouldn't pro-death be even worse than pro-life? It'd be effecting a much wider population, afterall. Pro-death is based off personal experience of what fellow peoples' did that led to misanthropy, which means it can be the exact opposite experience for others. Pro-life is at least occasionally rational, due to a decent or mass amount of suicides being based off irrational reasoning, and preventable. You could classify them as proponents to your movement, but same could be applied towards the other position. Additionally, using members of a disagreed philosophy just to "fight" against a common enemy will ultimately result in the disbanding of the group due to in-party arguments.
 
thrw_a_way1221221

thrw_a_way1221221

Angel of Choice - on borrowed time.
Aug 30, 2018
4,093
13,259
Wouldn't pro-death be even worse than pro-life? It'd be effecting a much wider population, afterall. Pro-death is based off personal experience of what fellow peoples' did that led to misanthropy, which means it can be the exact opposite experience for others. Pro-life is at least occasionally rational, due to a decent or mass amount of suicides being based off irrational reasoning, and preventable. You could classify them as proponents to your movement, but same could be applied towards the other position. Additionally, using members of a disagreed philosophy just to "fight" against a common enemy will ultimately result in the disbanding of the group due to in-party arguments.
Yes, this is true to some degree, though I guess the point I wanted to make is so instead of condemning pro-deathers wouldn't being neutral (neither condoning nor endorsing, but also not outright condemnation) towards them and seeing them more like the 'scenery' be a better position to take? Meaning that we see them as a necessary evil to stave off the vast majority of people (pro-lifers) out there. We don't have agree with them nor support their values and in fact we shouldn't as like others said, they are detrimental to our cause, but see them more as another side that "indirectly" fights against a common enemy, the pro-lifers. Thus, I see it more of an "my enemy's enemy is my friend" in that regard.

For example, here is one such example, during WWII, the allies and the axis powers are at war, and the major allied powers (US, UK, USSR) vs the major axis powers (Germany, Japan, Italy), and while the US (democratic nation) opposes the USSR (communist/socialist nation) based on the governmental and ideological system, they united against a common threat, Nazi Germany and helped to bring down the Nazis. Of course, after the war, the cold war began, but I digress.

Another example is Communist China and Kuomintang (Nationalist) China had a bloody civil war against each other, but temporarily set aside difficulties in order to deal with Imperial Japan's invasion in the 30's and 40's during WWII. After Imperial Japan has been defeated and surrendered, the civil war resumed and they went back to fighting each other until the Communists defeated the Kuomintang and then the Kuomintang retreated to an island called 'Taiwan'.

Back to your reply though, yes we both can agree that using a disagreed philosophy to fight against a common enemy will result in too much internal strife and conflict which is why I would not suggest just aligning with them blindly, let alone associating with them for the very problem you just described.
 
PhilosOfDoom

PhilosOfDoom

Veteran
Nov 22, 2019
178
138
Yes, this is true to some degree, though I guess the point I wanted to make is so instead of condemning pro-deathers wouldn't being neutral (neither condoning nor endorsing, but also not outright condemnation) towards them and seeing them more like the 'scenery' be a better position to take? Meaning that we see them as a necessary evil to stave off the vast majority of people (pro-lifers) out there. We don't have agree with them nor support their values and in fact we shouldn't as like others said, they are detrimental to our cause, but see them more as another side that "indirectly" fights against a common enemy, the pro-lifers. Thus, I see it more of an "my enemy's enemy is my friend" in that regard.

For example, here is one such example, during WWII, the allies and the axis powers are at war, and the major allied powers (US, UK, USSR) vs the major axis powers (Germany, Japan, Italy), and while the US (democratic nation) opposes the USSR (communist/socialist nation) based on the governmental and ideological system, they united against a common threat, Nazi Germany and helped to bring down the Nazis. Of course, after the war, the cold war began, but I digress.

Another example is Communist China and Kuomintang (Nationalist) China had a bloody civil war against each other, but temporarily set aside difficulties in order to deal with Imperial Japan's invasion in the 30's and 40's during WWII. After Imperial Japan has been defeated and surrendered, the civil war resumed and they went back to fighting each other until the Communists defeated the Kuomintang and then the Kuomintang retreated to an island called 'Taiwan'.

Back to your reply though, yes we both can agree that using a disagreed philosophy to fight against a common enemy will result in too much internal strife and conflict which is why I would not suggest just aligning with them blindly, let alone associating with them for the very problem you just described.
I guess what I was getting at, is how would you utilize them to fight against your common enemy without associating with them, or using them as proponents in the matter of philosophy? The groups we do have right now, the public almost certainly has no knowledge of their presence. I would've never heard of Exit if it wasn't for this forum. Even scholarly writings aren't going to become available or visible in the core public eye, asides from scholars and highly independent thinkers that are particularly interested in the Right to Die, which is very few presumably. I think the best approach would be targeting people that believe in euthanasia to the mentally ill, as there are much fewer who believe in non-government intervention in "unimportant" suicides, or suicidees who do not have chronic issues, as proponents. Thoughts?
 
thrw_a_way1221221

thrw_a_way1221221

Angel of Choice - on borrowed time.
Aug 30, 2018
4,093
13,259
To answer your first question, instead of calling them out or directly condemning them, I suppose we could be silent on those meaning that we would not condemn them 'directly' and just pretend they don't exist, while they chip away at pro-lifers. In other words, for example if people were to ask if we are pro-death, we would simply deny it and proclaim that we are "pro-choice" meaning that we support and respect any individual's choice between life or death and we don't encourage or force them to make the decision. Ultimately, the final decision rests on the individual him/herself.

As far as appealing to the people who support euthanasia for the mentally ill especially those who have long term and chronic problems (and want peace). I think that is a good starting point so far. In the current climate, there are death with dignity laws in the US albeit only 20% of the states and only reserved for those who are terminally ill and other strict criteria. As for other states, they still have yet to legalize it even for the terminally ill, let alone mentally ill. It is indeed an uphill battle and something that other outside groups are already pushing for, albeit slow change. So in short, yes we can support the existing groups that have it, but how far we get is yet to be determined, though I believe that as long as we appeal to the right audiences and continue to put pressure into legalizing it, over time (even if years from now) I guarantee there will be more states and governments that start off with legalizing it for those who are terminally ill then expand from there. My (and quite a few others on here) end goal is to see as many states and governments legalize voluntary euthanasia for those who wish to die (with appropriate checks and screenings to prevent abuse) to be able to exit in a peaceful and dignified manner.
 
epic

epic

Visionary
Aug 9, 2019
929
602
That's tribalism. We would stop being a group which stands for its pro-choice values and start being a group which is interested in gaining power even if it means compromising the beliefs on which this forum is based (which would be a pretty ironic thing) .
 
thrw_a_way1221221

thrw_a_way1221221

Angel of Choice - on borrowed time.
Aug 30, 2018
4,093
13,259
That's tribalism. We would stop being a group which stands for its pro-choice values and start being a group which is interested in gaining power even if it means compromising the beliefs on which this forum is based (which would be a pretty ironic thing) .
Good point and I in no way wish to be a "sellout" to our original values because like you said, it would undermine and even ruin any progress we have painstakingly fought for over the years.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Suicide Discussion 52