Essay talk:An essay about suicide

Why don't you go take a long walk off a short pier? - π 10:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you stop joking about suicide? It is absolutely despicable behaviour, and conduct unbecoming a moderator. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

--^talk 10:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

AD's standard response to any criticism of him — he is unable to see that anything could possibly be wrong with his actions. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Mr Whiny, where did he mention suicide? All he did was tell you to fall in the water. Can't you swim? --Longbow (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious from the context. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dry your fucking eyes, Princess. --Longbow (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a weighty topic seriously. Or do you have no ethics? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I do, but this isn't a weighty topic: it's just disruptive whining. If people on here were giving detailed instructions on how to make exit bags or how to hang yourself properly that would be one thing, but telling tedious trolls like you to take a long walk off a short pier is about as weighty as a big bag of helium. Now stop being such a Nancy boy. --Longbow (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Suicide isn't funny, people shouldn't joke about it. You shouldn't even wish it on your worst enemy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, WHY shouldn't I wish it on my worst enemy? I don't wish to be obvious here, but something that kills my worst enemies without any effort on my part seems pretty much perfect. --Longbow (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Awesome essay, you've outdone yourself this time. Clearly, not having a section that explicitly forbids something in the community standards means we endorse it. Never mind that the comment that triggered your latest crusade had already been rebuked by all three editors who'd commented on the thread, before you ever started sounding off on it. Never mind that nobody, not even Jeeves himself, has bothered to defend it ever since. Since you've apparently arrived at the point where you're composing essays that differ from Ken's drivel only in the quality of their style and presentation, might I suggest that you team up with your buddy to produce a magnum opus about RW and bestiality. To my knowledge, there's nothing against it in the CS, which again obviously means that we're a pro-bestiality website. And from the prevalence of the topic in your comments on the TWIGOCP thread, you also seem to share his obsession with the topic. You got a few solid hours of everybody's attention out of this crap, now please move along. Röstigraben (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the point is, that (1) my proposal to add it to Community Standards was rejected without any good reason, (2) at the same time, AD put forward a modified proposal, which included many of the same elements as my original proposal (e.g. threats of death or assault or rape), but omitted the prohibition of encouraging people to commit suicide, and which received support from many who objected to my original proposal (3) when I asked why include those elements but not the prohibition of encouraging suicide, no convincing reasons could be given. If you don't endorse it, why fight adding it to the Community Standards? But fighting adding it implies people do endorse it. No one is proposing adding a prohibition of bestiality to the Community Standards — well, the only form of bestiality you could commit on this website would be bestiality porn, and if anyone wants to add a bestiality porn ban to the Community Standards, I will support them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Usually I don't fall into the trap of calling someone a "troll" for no reason, but taking a discussing about community standards and launching into "RationalWiki is pro suicide" is beyond bullshit. I'd expect better from someone who can think. You've done the tabloid science reporting; taking one thing, stripping it of context, and just making it up for yourself. So you spend 90% of this saying "this is what Wikipedia says" and "poor me" and then don't even bother to directly quote AD, even though you're happy to extensively above. I'll give you 10/10 for attention grabbing audacity (not had much lately and feeling starved?), but 1/10 for actual reasoning ability and good form. ADK^{...I'll taste your monster!} 11:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to start a discussion on whether or not RW is pro-suicide at Ameriwiki as well. --Longbow (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's useful to get some opinions from outside of the RW snow globe... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Well, I think you're just trying to stir up shit. --Longbow (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Longbow is correct on that one. As they say on Dragons Den "I'm out", I'm not going to contribute to the stirring. ADK^{...I'll vomit your lemon!} 11:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And, predictably, ASK. -- Nx / talk 13:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Things we need to add to the community standards

Following Maratrean's logic that unless we specifically refute something in the community standards we are pro-it we need to extend the CS to include a paragraph on the following:

1. Rape
2. Murder
3. Infanticide
4. Genocide
5. Regicide
6. Theft
7. Not paying parking tickets
8. Returning library books late
9. Bestiality
10. Being clowns
11. Child abuse

Please add - π 10:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

But how can you commit those on this website, is the question? The Community Standards should only prohibit things it is reasonably possible to do on this website — while I don't agree with bestiality, I'm not sure how one does it using a website. Several of the other things you mention, like not paying parking tickets, or returning library books late, are not in the same league, and the comparison is offensive. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't commit suicide either on a website! - π 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Pi, I hope you go out and steal some books from the library. Maratrean, why don't you go fuck a horse? <- like that. That's encouraging the library thing, theft and bestiality over the website. You made the equivocation that not prohibiting something in CS is being "pro" it. ADK^{...I'll balkanize your lemon!} 11:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll steal a couple for you. - π 11:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ADK, what is your objection to amending community standards to prohibit encouraging people to commit suicide? AD is proposing to amend it to prohibit death threats — why yes to death threats but no to encouraging suicide? What consistent reason? If we followed Pi's approach above, we should strip everything from Community Standards entirely ("we can't ban everything so let's ban nothing!") — just delete the page then, eh? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection, as I generally don't mill around calling people dicks, sending death threats or trolling (I make exceptions, but it's not a rule) I don't tend to follow CS discussion. It's bloated discussion. My objection is to your argument here which is equating not containing Irrelevant Legislation X is equally to Support for X, and the fact that you're merely doing it to grab attention. If you note, I've never mentioned that I don't support adding such a thing to CS, you merely made that up, as you do most of the time when you claim to be producing valid "criticism". ADK^{...I'll soak your suicidal lemming!} 11:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll soak my suicidal lemming? That is an offence under some law or other. - π 11:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sig is randomised: Improbable things happen ADK^{...I'll sanctify your furry!} 11:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well ADK, if you have no objection to amending CS to prohibit that, why not just say so? I didn't say that the fact that CS doesn't prohibit X is tantamount to supporting X — I said that widespread objection to amending CS to prohibit X is tantamount to supporting X. Do you see the difference? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference is in mild semantics only. As espoused elsewhere, there are now proposals to add objections to misappropriating library books and suicide bombings - does objection to those mean you're pro book stealing and pro blowing yourself up? And of course, you titled this "Is RationalWiki a pro suicide website?" In my general experience, when someone writes an essay that's titled with a question like that they're usually wanting to swing it to the "yes" side. It's loaded from the start and it doesn't take a complete genius to see through it when you're asspulling. Even if I accepted that you pedantic difference was a genuine meaningful difference, you'd still be guilty as sin of equating "active approval" with "not explicit disapproval". ADK^{...I'll exemplify your idiot!} 02:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The only thing we are "pro" as a site is science.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Tag.

Delete?

1. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
2. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3. --Mikalosa (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
4. We're so hamstrung by rules that we need to host hit pieces by this douchenozzle? Let him go complain about how rotten RW is on arSK or any of the other sites he's been concern trolling on for months. 02:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep?

1. It's just a weird essay. Ignore it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
2. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3. We don't delete essays. And for fuck's sake, will you assholes stop feeding the troll?--^talk 20:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

   If you want to cut off his food supply, stop unblocking him and stop letting him post his bullshit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

4. What AD said. SoCal ²¹² 22:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Goat?

Commit mass suicide?

Joke about female genital mutilation, genocide, and clergy sex abuse

1. Dear Maratrean, please go find another mentally fragile girl standing on a ledge to save. I'm sure there's one somewhere who desperately needs your deep and sincere concern. Your work is not done, good sir knight! Don't let the door hit you on your way out. 02:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Use it as a vehicle to harass Maratrean

1. Ace^ace 20:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
2. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to userspace

1. DickTurpis (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)