Suicide Booths Legality

Suicide Booths should be in every corner in every block. It will reduce the emo population and is a human right to be to kill yourself. SInce euthanasia is legal, so should suicide booths. The government will gain massive amounts of tax revenue which 99% percent of the time will be spent on wars. There should be two options to kill yourself in the suicide booth, first option is a painless death. You will receive a blue pill that will give you aids. And will probably kill you 10 years. The second option is that the suicide booth will give you a rope to hang yourself while playing the song ''hallelujah'' by Jeff Buckley. Anyways,

(This is not a troll thread)

RXR.: Do you ever think that if you feel the need to justify whether something is a troll thread, it probably won't get much support?

Sounds legitimate

admin: @Admin you support euthanasia so you must support the suicide booth legality law. Anyways i wouldn't call this a troll thread, i just sprinkled some satire here and there. and out this thread came about.

RXR.: You don't need to both reply to me and tag me - that gives me two notifications lol.

I do support euthanasia but not all suicide qualifies. Supporting physician-assisted suicide in the event of otherwise intolerable suffering during a terminal illness is different from killing off all the emo kids.

RXR.: I don't think admin understands satire, lol.
Keeping euthanasia illegal causes people to kill themselves using messier and more unsavory means. Yet this does discourage those who do not like the pain of cutting their wrists.

Suicide control is a serious problem facing countries such as Japan. It is bad for society when stupid people off themselves.

admin: Do you think it is okay to legally kill yourself without terminal illness? That is pretty much the case in 95% of suicides.
Many people believe that one has a right to do what they want to their own bodies, which would include suicide.

Blackflag: No. Suicide and euthanasia are different. I don't support suicide.

admin: Sure you do not support suicide. Do you believe people should have the right to continue not living?

Blackflag: No

admin: Okay................................... why?

Blackflag: Because imposing a general right on a population to kill themselves is not healthy for that population. People who want death generally need psychiatric support, not a legal right to do so.

admin: You know, that is pretty much the equivalent of the government saying "Shut up, we know what is best for you!" The enlightenment taught us that societies should be based on ideals of liberty and freedom, with government intervention being necessary only when an individual threatens the many and their standard of living. The long term consequences of suicide in societies are unclear, but civilization's history of restricting humanities bodily practices and beliefs has been shown to be extremely detrimental.

Perhaps people who try and commit suicide need legal help, but that is just an opinion. Humans entitled to our own philosophy, and as long as a certain philosophy isn't causing direct harm to me or anyone else, I will not support the authoritarian liberals and elites who want to control society.

Blackflag: Post Edit:
Perhaps people who try and commit suicide need psychological help , but that is just an opinion. Humans are entitled to our own philosophies , and as long as a certain philosophy isn't causing direct harm to me or anyone else, I will not support the authoritarian liberals and elites who want to control society in their owm image.

Blackflag: Sure, but how does suicide enhance liberty or freedom? Death is the removal of the freedom of a person. The long term consequences of suicide in society is perfectly clear - it sucks. And telling people not to do it has never been detrimental. Western culture has had a large taboo against it for a very long time. Personal philosophy has nothing to do with it.

admin: Again, this is a perfect example of "Shut up, I know what's best for you."

People have the liberty to restrict their individual liberty. I don't commit suicide to restrict myself from acting upon certain liberties, but someone is completely free to commit suicide if that is what they want to do. What people want to do to themselves is their business. I do not see how it affects me or anyone else at all. If an individual feels he would rather rest than continue living, no one has a right to judge.

Sure, it isn't detrimental to tell someone not to commit suicide. I would tell someone not to tell suicide as well, but I do not think the practice should be criminalized. Many people want to commit suicide and make strong cases for why they would be better off. They should be able to act on their philosophy, because the restricting the freedom to act is oppressive and a human rights violation. Their philosophy and the actions it involves only affect me if I make the personal choice to let it affect me.

You remind me of one of my friends. He is not from America, and he always is talking about how the government should control and stop people from making bad choices. He went as far as putting the homeless in prison. How far will you go? Picking career choices for people because smart people know what's best?

I do not buy it. Life is about independent decision making. Instituting control and conformity standards is countering our human nature to individualize ourselves. Let people act independently and inform them of the possible consequences. That is the best you can do.

Blackflag: Life is about independent decision making.

Why do you think that? Seems to be a premise for your whole view here.

admin: Pretty much. If my future was determined completely for me, and outside of menial activities my every major life choice was controlled by a so called "just" minority of conformists, I would not consider that living at all. Living is about throwing yourself into conflict and coming out the other side. Life is about creating a future, not having one created for you.

What is your view here? Do you really think we should make laws to fix other people, when 100% of the world's population have not even fixed their own damn problems? It is not only hypocritical to make decisions for other people, but it has and always will create more problems further down the road.

To summarize my little sermon here...

Potential Debate topic: Society would be better off with less* freedoms.

*this would obviously need some definitions to frame it, but the general spirit would be to contrast, not the absolutes of either model, but something reasonably close to that.

Personally, I think that releasing the control of large sections of my life would (ironically) be potentially freeing. I definitely think more stuff would get accomplished, the question is really whether the ill of a loss of autonomy would outweigh the inefficiency of autonomy.
I'm not sure where I'd sit, but I know it'd be more interesting to argue PRO!