Talk:Should suicide be legal?

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

State of the law[edit]

Suicide is legal. It is just effectively illegal. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 08:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Ten: How so? If anything, you could maybe argue the opposite... There may be laws against it but they are impossible to enforce. And besides, laws change by jurisdiction by definition. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
How so? It is legal because there are no criminal penalties for attempting that I am aware of. There are psychiatric penalties. Therefore, suicide is in fact legal, but it is also legal to lock individual up for trying to engage in suicide in psychiatric wards, thereby making it effectively illegal. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Debate censorship?[edit]

Is debate censorship occurring? If debate censorship is going to occur without prior discussion, I probably will not participate. See here. Good luck to you. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 07:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Ten: Debating the reality of mental illness from some Szaszian/Scientology perspective is so far afield from what this debate is that it's irrelevant. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I'm not sure if I understand your statement. Please simply it or clarify it for me. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 22:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Michael Ten: The debate is about whether or not suicide should be legal. A tangential debate about whether mental illness exists is outside the scope of this debate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: As I see it, you are exactly wrong, because the idea/concept of mental illness is used as justification to effectively outlaw suicide. If you explore the myth of mental illness, then you undermine the justifications of psychiatric coercion and confinement (which is how suicide effectively illegal). Have you read any of psychiatrist Thomas Szasz's works, emeritus professor psychiatry? He explains all this. You seem to be censoring debate. Thomas Szasz compares the error of the idea of mental illness to the error in idea of phlogiston, in his book The Medicalization of Everyday Life. Michael Ten (discusscontribs) 00:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Michael Ten, Koavf: Relax guys. Speaking of "censorship" is inadequate. Censorship would imply that some authority controls content, but here there's no authority, we're all users. If we don't like a revert, we revert it or come here to the talk page and discuss it (as you did). That being said, I think that the sub-debate about the non-existence of mental illness is interesting and relevant. However, having read your arguments, it looks to me like you were each trying to "win", rather than trying to construct together a logically organized resource of arguments and objections, which is what Wikidebate is all about (please re-read Wikidebate/Guidelines). Today or tomorrow I will bring back the chunks of your arguments that make sense (which are many) stripped out of all the heat of your emotions and personal attacks. Any help would be welcome! And by the way, I think that this existence/non-existence of mental illness deserves a wikidebate of its own. ;-) --Sophivorus (discusscontribs) 01:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Michael Ten: As I pointed out above, I am familiar with Szasz and Scientology. It's garbage. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have restored your debate in much shorter and neutral terms. Please feel free to add any further objections you want, but please honor the guidelines. I will probably turn this sub-debate into its own wikidebate sooner or later, cheers! --Sophivorus (discusscontribs) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)