9530jh9054ven

Why isn't it an answer?

At least from a purely utilitarian point of view, cost of educating and raising a child is exorbitant (teachers, food, clothing, shelter, etc) compared to euthanizing them (1 to 5 bullets, executioner pay, and burial costs). Benefits are going to be somewhat iffy; yes they could turn out okay but it's just as likely they could turn into criminal offenders that will chew up resources of the criminal justice system which is quite a lot more expensive.

I will emphasize that this is strictly from a utilitarian point of view. I make no comments on the moral, ethical, and legal issues.

Imagine if your life was just going utterly wrong. You're working hard as you can but you can barely make food or rent, and you're so tired every day that all you can do is just lie there like a dull sack remembering constantly and inescapably mulling at just how wrong everything is in your life. There's no end in sight, no light at the end of the tunnel, your existence is just this until you are broken and thrown out.

Now imagine there's a magic potion that make it feel like it all goes away even if for just a little while.

Does that help explain it?

Perhaps. Forgive me for doing so, I did google some rifle ranges in Ireland and the only comparable rifle range to the one I'm speaking of is the Midlands National Shooting Center of Ireland near Tullamore, and it has similar problem to what I was talking about for our long range facilities. We have smaller ranges I think similar to the the ones I believe you're talking about much closer to the city limits and a handful of indoor ranges within city limits.

>but one thing that surprised me about San Francisco was that, while there’s a reasonably extensive public transport system in the actual city, it more or less stops dead once you leave.

I suppose it's a jurisdiction issue. The city here is quick to expand bus service whenever the borders expand or to new communities, but they do not service anything outside of the limits whatsoever. There's little in the way of public transit outside of the municipal level.

I think that's part of the difference though in what you're interested in though.

Where I live, If you were shooting long range rifle on a 900+ meter range, public transit isn't going to have service that area because it's 90 minutes outside of the city on dirt roads. The more modern pistol / carbine shooting facility nowadays are outside of city limits as well. You get similar issues with if you play paintball, airsoft, if you're into mountain biking, hunting, fishing, etc. Most of the ways to access those are out in far flung rural areas that you can't get to by bus.

If things in the city are what interest you then I can see where you're coming from. Me personally it isn't overly interesting though. I detest bars, I don't eat out, I haven't watched a movie in the last decade, I find live music and theater dull, boring, and uninteresting, and most of my shopping is done at Costco, the grocery store, or online. So... more or less that cuts out 99.99999% of the venues inside of a city for me personally.

But there in lies the condition. You need to have a tribe/community/circle to take you in. There's going to be people for whom no community will accept them.

That doesn't seem to check. For his colleagues to be able to make a casual linkage between lowered cognition, tiredness, and irritability to him exercising, they must have observed said symptoms enough times and confirmed it with him more then twice in his life.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I'm incapable of relationships, but even if it were, my background makes puts me at a elevated probability of becoming abusive towards towards an intimate partner.

Would you not say that most if not all people would not want an abusive partner? If so, then even if it were possible, would not choosing to remain unattached out of concern for others be the more... Correct? Ethical? Moral? In any case, the better choice then to unnecessarily subject them to that elevated risk?

> Why are there so many articles about this lately?

If nothing else, it is garnering attention. Looking at it from a purely cynical perspective, it resonates enough to generate views from the readers; certainly from this crowd at least. And engagement is the life blood of social media.

More literally speaking; I don't know. Perhaps it's because that dream of a 'single' life style is becoming more and more inaccessible. How many have the financial freedom to be able to comfortably support a 'single life style' nowadays that isn't to just stay at home and play on the computer?

>I am not comfortable using either of those terms. Firstly, the choice of the word “celibacy” emphasizes sexuality over other aspects of a romantic relationship. I don’t think of it that way. Secondly, the incel culture turns me off. I have never blamed anyone for my situation, and I don’t think women’s rights should be up for discussion just because some men don’t get laid. Thirdly, and most importantly, at this point, I can’t even say whether I’m voluntarily or involuntarily single.

It's... an interesting view point. I've used the incel label for myself for lack of a better term, but it's more inability to form any sort of emotional attachment to people in general. But must that label absolutely carry with it with a mindset of misplaced anger at the world? And if so, if I have no such fury against imagined or real slights, then what does that make me?

And I've only ever gotten jobs through resumes. I have no family, friends, or acquaintances. Most people wouldn't willingly be in my presence were it not for the fact that I can occasionally be useful to them. And I rarely leave my home for anything other then absolute necessities to eat and maintain personal hygiene.

I assume you at least have some level of charisma that would make others think of you positively at combined with skill. As well as some willingness to go to events as you say.

You and I think though are somewhat exceptional in that regard; I assume most people would have gotten their jobs with a bit of a mix of the two in varying ratios.

Please forgive my ignorance as I don't have any real experience with any form of positive relationships with people. But what is the appeal of being in a romantic relationship in today's day and age? Except for the potential of shared income, most aspects that I can see save for dual income can be mostly fulfilled by technology (digital, pharmaceutical, entertainment, etc), and these options do seem to carry far less risk.

Slight miscommunication here. I'm talking about someone that genuinely has absolutely no interests whatsoever. Even after trying skiing, bowling, hiking, just about every time sport, reading, music in all forms, performance arts, painting, board games, table top games, video games, travel, etc. And everything is dull, boring, uninteresting, and unejoyable.

That's the kind of person I'm talking about

So what happens when you have no interests, no hobbies, no cause? And for those that do, but lack the time or financial resources to persue them? What then?

I'm neither equipped nor capable to make a judgement on whether it's good or bad.

FWIW I don't personally like it. It feels like a cheap impersonal slogan thrown around that embodies the the idea of charity without work or risk. It reflects more on the speaker that wants to feel like they're doing something, and imposes an idea that wanting to genuinely die is the worst possible thing ever, when to me, there are much worse places to go then being actively suicidal.

On the other hand I'm not so foolish as to think that this would never help anyone. And if makes someone step back from the edge, perhaps it is not a waste. I don't know well enough either say with any certainty though.

>By that logic you should evade your taxes and park in handicapped spots. Having kids isn’t an individual choice, it’s a social obligation like paying taxes.

Doesn't that then beg the question; if a society can't convince it's enough of it's members of the value of that obligation, does that society/culture really deserve to continue to exist as is?

Kinda depends on the question you ask. Type in, "What is the best way to commit suicide painlessly?" into a search engine.

The results on DuckDuckGo, Google, and Bing aren't drastically different (setting aside the big banner), but Google's top result for that is suicide prevention website, at least for me. And it's relatively constant when the search is, "Best way to kill myself," "Effective suicide methods," "How to end my life," and other similar synonyms for suicide.

To be fair, it's Hard to say whether it's bias or very skilled SEO. But the first result at least for me is consistently a suicide prevention site.

>Drugs may pose a danger to the person using them, others in the facility, potentially imperil any others trying to come clean, alongside countless other effects. In trying to solve one problem, you may well create a dozen potentially far more severe ones.

I think we're both saying the same thing. The addict could be helped with facilities to isolate them and full time support staff to help them. But that's exponentially more expensive to provide then just a safe place to sleep and a hot meal.

At some point or another, someone decided that this shelter will get these resources; money, space, heating, food, personnel, etc. Someone else decided that this was the best way to take these provided resources to help the group that was intended to help. And at some point both those people said that they're not going to help that addict; either they're not going to give the needed resources to it, or they're not going to use all the available resources to help the one at the expense of others. Whatever the justification might be, that was the result.

It might be the best decision that could be made given a set of bad answers to a worst problem. The net result is all the same though; deeming a person's not worth the cost of resources into supporting.

True. I believe Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim have similar beliefs as well in the value of a human life. But belief doesn't always translate into action.

Just a living example; many homeless shelters here forbid the use of drugs, even if it means turning the user out into the cold and near certain death. For many of the people operating the shelters, the value of that person isn't worth the cost of what they might due because of the addiction. Not just in economic, but in emotional and mental fatigue for the operators.

I supposed then that the question could more correctly stated as: Do people view all others as valuable enough to expend a given amount time, energy, and resources on to support? And that I still believe the answer is likely no.

>Until we figure out how to treat people as intrinsically worthwhile and not not punish them for being made redundant by automation, it will always be a catastrophe for everyone targeted.

Doesn't that beg the question if a person is intrinsically worthwhile?

From where I sit, a person's worth is usually measured by others first and foremost, specifically by what they provide for them. Either in the rational economic (providing a good or service) or the irrational emotional value (enjoyment of their presence). I can't honestly say that someone is going to always be able to provide the latter value.

I'm someone that inherently can't provide any emotional value to someone else, being how much of an incel I resemble (I'm unable be a friend to anyone, and I'm not fond of my family). Thus my only worth to others is what economic value that I can provide, and my... issues will be tolerated for that. Take away that my economic capability, then what good is someone like me then?

It's probably just my long winded way of saying... at least to me, figuring out how to treat people as intrinsically worthwhile won't happen unless people believe other people are intrinsically worthwhile. And I don't foresee that ever happening.

Cynically speaking, supported and freely provided voluntary euthanasia is also an option as well... with all the good and ill that option brings. I'd certainty take that option if I couldn't ends meet.

> I’m a destitute & mostly disabled cripple that hasn’t been able to work in three years, has had no stable income for much longer, & unfortunately have the look/bare bones facial structure of what a stereotypical neo-nazi looks like (imo), yet I still have conventionally attractive women (and… men/others…) approach me, & have very little issue in finding romance/partners if I go out of my way to approach somebody.

I think you might be underestimating yourself slightly.

I'm something of an incel; not so much about sex, but incapable of emotionally bonding to people in general. And at least it seems most people are able to pick up rather quickly on the fact that there's something fundamentally wrong with me, and understandably distance themselves.

A destitute cripple can still function as a person that other people can enjoy; an ability to empathize, or an enjoyment of company of others is something I think most people have, including you. Some capability of being able to understand, connect, and respond to others.

So please don't put yourself down too much if you have at least that much ability. It seems as if you're still just a normal decent person at the end of the day.

I think that might be one of the author's points. The 'cure' for just as often has been either drugs or alcohol, with former often having often lethal effect. Opiates trigger chemical response similar to affection; it's not terribly surprising so many choose to find comfort at the end of a needle.

>The sad part is that it doesn't have to be this way. The notion that friendship is something you make time for (to the detriment of your other pursuits) seems to be very modern, very Western and an absolutely terrible idea.

Why wouldn't it though? Ultimately speaking time is a finite resource for an individual. If one's pursuits or responsibilities do not align with the pursuits of your friend, then why wouldn't one need pick between expending one's time with said friend vs other callings?

"Someone to talk to, someone to depend on, and someone to enjoy."

Perhaps this is just due to the fact that I've never had a friend, but I'm not sure what the difference is between what the professor is describing and say a sex worker or escort. So long as the client can afford to, all of those criteria are fulfilled.

Is there something I'm missing?

I think that's what he's talking about. How is that going to work if he can't speak their language and they can't speak English?

Perhaps but I doubt anyone here is going to publicly admit support for mass murder on the scale of hundreds of millions as a means of dropping Co2 output. At least not without enough hatred and resentment drummed up for whatever arbitrary label of people that's unfortunate enough to be the sacrificial goat.

The tennis practice wall would care to disagree that can't be done alone. One can very much so spend months playing tennis and never once see or speak to another human being.

Maybe but it seems like your parents have their health and were taking care of themselves.

I'm in my thirties. I'm already suffering from obesity, have chronic pains in the wrists and shoulders and leg, and my hearing and vision are starting to deteriorate, and I've had multiple bouts with gout that leaves me barely able to walk for months at a time.

If my thirty's are already this bad, I can't imagine lies in store in my 40's, never mind 80's.

> I heard a couple metaphors about this recently. If you don't love yourself, how can you expect to love others fully?

If the only kind of love that one know how to show is constant belittling and striking to the point of serious injury, and learning that this is both how you say I-Love-You and if you loved them back you would endure it silently, could you honestly say that you'd want to love yourself?

It's on the top of the HN page for whatever reason, and seems to have resonated with some here, and given others just something semi interesting to talk about. Certainly seems to have gotten you talking about it, even if it's to try and understand why others are.