captaincalcium's reply history at Help.com

I’d like to thank the Fronde for his post. I tried to write something similar, but sadly am lacking in the philosophical context to adequately express his point. I wonder, however, about the personal experiences that have led up to your decision. I will not waste on you the pathos-based arguments ordinarily reserved for suicidal posters. Truth be told, I don’t know you, and while there are likely people who would be effected by your death, I would never even know. I cannot appeal to greater experience, as you are obviously older than I am, and have obviously put a great deal more time and effort than has even been available to me on the study of philosophy. I find it strange, however, that you maintain that you wish to die because of alienation from society, and you wish to talk to us to prove a point. Forgive my skepticism, but I believe this is not so. Alienation alone is almost never the sole reason for suicide. I, and I am certain many other people feel at odds with the dominant social paradigm, and most of us have grown cynical enough to believe we cannot change it, but we entertain no notions of suicide. Now, isolation, a product of alienation, is often cited. The sense that one is alone in one’s endeavors, and that under no circumstances will one find the comfort of an understanding ear is a strong motivator for suicide. But you are an intelligent man, one who, if I am not mistaken, believes he views himself objectively, from an external perspective. I do not believe you are foolish enough to believe that you cannot exist in an environment contrary to your principles, and the fact that you are here, on a site generally reserved for people who don’t feel like googling their homework answers, looking for deep understanding suggests to me that you are far from the conclusion that you will never be understood. So what is it that has spawned your desire to off yourself? Only in circumstances in which one feels that the future offers no potential rewards is suicide a rational option. No one kills himself just to prove a point. The gains of proving the point are never felt, and the long term gains of continued existence are lost. One must feel that nonexistence would be a blessing for suicide to be a rational option. It is very rare for a non-concrete reason to be supplied truthfully for suicide. So again, I must ask what exactly has made nonexistence worthwhile to you?

There’s a lot of really good stuff that’s now expired, actually. Mostly jazz. Bessie Smith, Fletcher Henderson, and some Early Louis Armstrong were released in the 20’s Incidentally, a very handy tool for the conscientious music downloader is www.riaaradar.com.

I heard a rumor that he died of syphilis, but that was unsubstantiated. Wikipedia tells me he choked to death on his own blood after a pneumonia attack caused a blood vessel in his epiglottis to start leaking.

True, true, but there is a sadly small number of people interested in music published before 1923, which is the latest date of publication for any public domain music…

Oh, so we’re getting into an argument over help.com procedure on a dead post, are we?
First, I resent the implication that there is such a thing as “my place” on help.com. I am not employed by CNET, and am in no way contractually or morally obligated to directly answer any question.
Second, under the overarching mission statement of help.com (”Find answers to important questions. Learn new skills. Achieve personal goals. Get inspired. Fix what’s broken. Build. Create. Solve problems. Change things. Accomplish stuff that matters.”) it is not only my right but my duty to inform the poster that bypassing school security is a crime and that probably the second most common and absolutely the most annoying question on help.com is “how do I get on myspace at school.”
Third, more is achieved by discussion than by quickly answering the question, though it is often important to answer the question first. In this case, however, to do so would be unwise since the goal of the help was to carefully chide the poster away from wasting valuable school time on social networking.
Fourth, you’re a dick.

You’ll get no argument from me that faith is important, but it also says,
“Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works,
and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:16, and also, “Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in, naked, and ye clothed me not, sick and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, we saw we thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:41-46

Those are King James Version, and even if they weren’t, I’ve checked a handy little web site called Bible Browser, and to the best of my knowledge none of the retranslations change the meaning.

Well rephrased. First, it’s important to remember that Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism, and that traditionally Buddhists acknowledge the Hindu gods, though they consider them part of the cycle of reincarnation like everybody else. Polytheism and Christianity don’t really mix.
Simply following the 8-fold path does not imply this belief, however, which is good, but it’s also important to remember that following the 8-fold path does not make one a “Buddhist” in the dogmatic sense. A person could easily follow the Beatitudes and be a practicing Jew, or the 10 Commandments and be a Moslem. These are codes of behavior, rather than statements of religious belief, and they are NOT mutually exclusive. To be a “Buddhist” however, one must accept all the dogmatic teachings, including those of reincarnation and social casting at birth, which conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament. Whether you will be “condemned to an eternity in hell” is entirely based on the assumption that there is a hell, which is a pretty freakin’ big assumption. It’s important to have a specific religious affiliation, however. True, most of the world’s religions are based on very similar value systems, but they are also very picky about how one goes about practicing them.

I’m sorry GirlofGrace, but I fear you’re horribly misusing your Corinthians quote. That part of the epistle was warning us to be humble, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” (2 Corinthians 12:11) rather than considering ourselves saved by the favor of the Lord alone. It then warns, “And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.” (2 Corinthians 12:21) which indicates that it is through faith AND pious action that we are saved.

Just for the record, myspace is not exactly a hotbed of pedophile activity. There have been isolated cases, as there will be with any technology, of people taking advantage of the system, and we should be ever vigilant to stop them, but we are too quick to condemn a medium as revolutionary as myspace (though it is now quickly going out of style) for these infractions. Most users are perfectly innocent.

also, DancerLynn, are you really condoning corporal punishment for adultery? Because they quite definitely had prisons back then, since they are mentioned by name at numerous points. And even if they didn’t, stoning was just as much a human creation as the Inquisition. It didn’t “have to happen”.

Jason1’s assertion has grounds, but I don’t think it has to do with the things people have done in God’s name (Or any of his prophets, Jesus, Mohamet, etc.) These are fundamentally human acts, and the responsibility for them lies on the humans who committed them. No lightning bolts fell from heaven to burn witches. People did that well enough on their own. My difficulties with god lie in the game-playing he, if he exists, is doing with us. Why make a world where everything that happens is designed to convince us that there is no benevolent force in the Universe? Original sin? If he is omnipotent, why didn’t he stop Adam and Eve from sinning? If he is omniscient, why didn’t he see it coming and warn them? Why create a world at all? Just to have creatures to worship him? Maybe that’s why he “tests” us. To make sure we still believe in him. Is my entire existence just an ego trip for some insecure supreme being?

I think you’ll find most people here resistant to answering questions like this. Partly because accessing blocked web sites from someone else’s computer (especially the government’s) qualifies as illegal data access, and partly because schools block web sites like myspace to keep you safe and focused on school, but mostly because we’re ****ing tired of hearing the question.

I’m not attacking your beliefs, Queen, I tend to agree with them over those of the poster, and it is your right to state them and defend them. I’m saying that if you want to make any headway in the discussion, beyond the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes, you have to make an argument instead of a broad assertion. The same goes for Dancerlynn.

It seems fairly obvious to me that we are covering no ground in this argument. Nothing will be determined, no matter how many times you make grave affirmations of your lifestyle choices at each other. Queenie, you and many of our other fellow Help.com regulars choose to view the world, and therefore God, in a very loose and permissive manner. You see a world of infinite possibilities, where God stays the hell out of the way unless he’s needed, while Lynn makes the assumption that God is a very real presence in the world, who is powerful and demanding, and who provides validation for pious action on earth in the afterlife. Her God would be unimpressed with your assertion that he should “chill out” just as your god-structure (collective consciousness, rebirth into the samsaric world, etc.) would figuratively be insulted by her strict interpretations.
The point is, you take two very different initial positions as given, and to have a constructive argument, you have to approach each other on each other’s own grounds, or at least challenge the other’s premise directly, rather than restating your own respective opinions over and over again.