libbonobo

Yes! At last. Thank you. Exactly as you say, you can say that "the pain John was in has ended"; you might even be able to say that "the total pain in the world has decreased" (as long as John's death did not create more total pain in those still existing than he had before he died). The trouble is, also exactly as you say, that we cannot say that John has benefited or that his state has improved (and he certainly cannot say that). Most people who commit suicide do not do so to benefit the total world pain, or even to benefit their own pain, but to benefit themselves -- which is the one thing that cannot be said. (I say most in acknowledgement of those who do believe that their sacrifice somehow redeems or otherwise improves the state of the world. But these individuals generally either have some fervent (or rabid) religious belief excluding them from the atheist category, or are suffering delusions from a mood or thought disorder.) It occurs to me from sumbloke's mention of bodies that there is one way for an atheist to believe in afterexistence without afterlife: by identifying "you" with your body. In that case, "John is no longer suffering" is no longer vacuous -- there is a really existent "John" which is really no longer suffering. Is that what you meant, sumbloke? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding, but I have a much more brain-centric view of the world, and identify "you" with your brain activity, not your body. No brain activity, no "you", even if the body is still alive; and certainly if the body is dead, then "you" do not exist.

Well, whatever your belief system, atheist, theist, or otherwise, logic and rationality are absolute guiding principles. They may not embody *all* truth, but no truth can contradict logic and rationality. The point is that if one is an atheist, the assumption of nonexistence after death makes suicide illogical/irrational. No no no. Something is not getting translated. This is the OPPOSITE of what I am saying. The point is that for the atheist, there *ISN'T* any subject at all, whether unified or divorced from object, embodied or disembodied. Therefore, for an atheist to say of a decedent formerly named John that "John is not suffering", what they are really saying is that "nonexistent fairy-tale John is not suffering." If your objection about disembodied subjects is against the nonexistent fairy-tale John, then THAT is completely appropriate. The logical atheist with the courage of his convictions will reject all fairy-tale statements. Let's backup a step. A statement is vacuous or empty when it makes assertions about things or situations that don't exist. That is, vacuous statements are statements making assertions about members of the empty set. Vacuous statements are held to be true (vacuously true) because the empty set is a subset of every set. You can assert any property P that you wish for nonexistent objects, because members of the empty set are also members of {x : x has property P}, no matter what property P is. To review: a statement "x has property P" is vacuous and vacuously true if x does not exist. For it to be true in other than a vacuous way, x really has to exist and really has to have property P. But if we are agreeing that x does not exist, then the statement CAN'T be true in any other way than vacuously. So to claim any more than vacuous truth for a statement that something which doesn't exist isn't suffering is simply wrong. However counterintuitive it may seem, you can validly assert ANYTHING AT ALL about nonexistent objects. There is *NO* logical basis at all for preferring any of these vacuous fairy-tale statements over any other, and they all have exactly the same moral import, as they all have to do with the relative degree of suffering before and after death, which is the moral basis for suicide: (a) "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is not suffering." ( "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is suffering horribly." © "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is suffering less than really existent John was suffering before death." (d) "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is suffering a million times more than really existent John was suffering before death." If you ascribe importance to (a), logic compels you to ascribe the same importance to (,©, and (d). But again, the logical atheist with the courage of his convictions will reject all such fairy-tale statements. He will not be influenced by statements such as "He's in a better place now", which are commonly uttered by people who *DO* believe that people continue on after death in really existent, non-fairy-tale fashion. To the atheist, those are all fairy-tales to be rejected. But it absolutely does. No one else's suffering is the relevant one besides the one committing suicide. John's committing suicide does not end my suffering or anyone else's suffering, and indeed might even add to it. The comparison of John's suffering before and after death is the only relevant comparison, and the atheist cannot make this comparison except in fairy-tale. For the one particular individual contemplating suicide, *his* context is exactly the relevant one. See above. This is so insidious! Again, "less bad" refers to a fairy-tale comparison. More good, less bad, doesn't matter. The comparison is still a fairy-tale one. "[my] coming to non-exist can plausibly end my suffering which is less bad for me" is yet another fairy-tale comparison.

Happy Birthday, Sharon! The secret formula is that old = age of current speaker + 10. Therefore, according to your profile, old = 47, and she is not old. But just in case, here're some nice vitamins

Right! You can't make any better or worse comparisons between existence and nonexistence. Better and worse comparisons can only be made on things that exist. That's all I was trying to say: the person who believes there is nothing after death has no basis to say that there is more good (or less bad) after death. It's only someone who believes that existence continues after death who could make such a comparison. This was in response to sumbloke's assertion that there is no moral objection to suicide except religious ones. In fact, it's the other way around, and it's the atheist who should be complaining that comparisons of whether things are better or worse after death are fairy-tale comparisons.

But that's exactly the problem, nonexistence is not comparable to existence. To say non-existence is better than existence is precisely what is the myth or fairy-tale.

Matthew: Your gay psychologist is completely whacked. Being gay does *NOT* necessarily entail multiple sexual partners, drugs, circuit parties, or anything like that. I'd venture to say that this is in fact the minority of what gay people are like. Gay people have completely normal jobs, completely normal pastimes, completely normal life goals, completely normal sizes and shapes, act completely normal, look completely normal,...gay people ARE completely normal. Your gay friends are right. It's only the homophobes that try to confine us to a box. It is sad that so many of us experience this from our own families. I wish I could reassure you that your family would actually love you even after you came out to them, but there are degenerates that would reject even their own flesh and blood. Still, if they do reject you, that says bad things only about them, not you. And truthfully, I think we often don't give our families enough credit. I didn't. I agree with Dom that it's more likely that your mom would prefer a gay son to a dead one. Even if you can't see it now, there is hope for the future. You *can* find your way and make a life for yourself. It's been done before, by gay people in all kinds of circumstances. You actually have a lot going for you -- you have smarts, you have friends, and you have enough of a desire to want to keep going to reach out, even if it's on an anonymous board. You may feel that your life is not going to get better, but if you truly feel that trapped by your family's prejudice, and can't get past the fear of coming out to them to find out, at least wait until you're financially independent before deciding anything. Once you're financially independent, they have fewer ways in which to hurt you. Please don't carry out your plan. I have no way to stop you, and, as a complete stranger on the internet, no connection by which to lend the appeal any emotional weight. But if you stop posting over the next 2 weeks, I will miss your presence & wonder. Well, even taking "one should avoid what is bad" as the axiom for moral behavior, it still remains invalid to compare quality of existence before and after death, if there is no existence after death to posit any quality for. That is, we can't say "they are suffering less than when they were alive" if there is no "they" about whom to posit degree of suffering. Or, to revisit the "vacuously true" bit in purely set theoretical terms, the empty set is a subset of ANY set. Thus, while {x : x does not exist} is a subset of {x : x is not suffering}, it is ALSO a subset of {x : x is suffering abominably}. So, for the person who believes there is no afterlife, it's not actually an argument *for* suicide to talk about avoidance of 'bad', because you cannot validly say that a nonexistent thing is avoiding 'bad'. (Or, if you say that it is vacuously true, then it is also vacuously true to say that the 'bad' is a million times worse.) It's only if existence continues after death that avoidance of 'bad' can be a possible argument for suicide.

All he said was that he's "gone through at least a dozen therapists who all tell me that I shouldn

This is his official website: http://www.johnedward.net/ It should work. Of course, there is often a disparity between what should be and what is. This disparity is called EEEEVILLLL.

Post some!!!! If it's at all like your blog, it will rock. Or maybe it will country. =>

Hmmm. Works for me.... [off-topic rant] I hate "works for me." Mozilla is now working on their firefox-1.5 release candidates, and I filed a bug that I can't get either 1.5rc1 or 1.5rc2 to play nice with java -- can't access the chat room here on GA, for example. A few others post that they too have java issues, but then yet few others post that it "works for me". The unmitigated gall. And now there isn't anyone with know-how who is asking questions to help figure out why it doesn't work for everybody. Argh. [/off-topic rant]

Many gems in Snow Dog's post above. I'd like to point out one more, based on connecting the items selected in the quote: when the hormonal rush fades, the relationship will also depend on your conscious choice to maintain it, and you have to be aware of those choices. With Julio, the choices you were making, at least the ones you documented in your blog, were putting him second, and you were oblivious to it. In the future, you have to wake up. Know what you are doing. Every day, make deliberate choices that put your boyfriend first. Spend time with him. Do nice things for him on a proactive basis. He shouldn't have to express disgruntlement and fear of losing you before you order your friends away and try to cook a meal for him. That's too little, too late. A relationship isn't just about feelings. It is also about the mind and will. You have to be mindful and deliberate in what you do. This is the crux of what I've been hinting at before.

LOL. No, this John Edward: http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/ You must have a life.

Chaz and Green sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G first comes love then comes marriage then along comes CYAN in a baby carriage err, or perhaps civil union and adoption papers

Wow, you used the phrase at long last! "It tastes me to quit your calzones with my hardness"

Sheng ri kuai le! Wan shi ru yi!

Huzzah. That's definitely key. Know yourself. Also, know what you're doing, be aware of how that's affecting other people, and be honest about it all, to yourself & others. Good luck.

Don't you yell at him. Rather, listen and try to understand. He didn't leave for no reason. Part of what I was trying to convey in my previous posts is that it is completely possible that he has felt taken for granted & treated like a second class citizen. Had I been Julio and reading your blog, I would definitely have felt that way.

HAHAHAHAHA! In fact the bonobo library is a "component system based on CORBA," (short for Common Object Request Broker Architecture) "used by the GNOME desktop". In their geekiness, the programmers decided to name their project after the great apes. Here's what a bonobo is: http://www.bonobo.org/

Everybody wants your body, Green. I agree with slaveboy's comments. The ones that have been deleted.

Hehe. It often escapes detection even by other people examining the decedent's body. If the blood concentration of carbon monoxide is high, it makes the blood a bright red, which might be noticed in the skin color. Otherwise there are no signs. The only way to detect it is to suspect and then specifically measure it.

Happy birthday, CJ82! Except that aren't you 23 this year? (shakes fist at naper_vic ) In which case, here's this one:

First off, I'm glad you talked with Julio. He's the only one who could tell you what was going on with him. That was the only way you could come to terms with him, and he with you. I hope the parting was not inimical if it wasn't amicable. As to Chaz, whatever you may or may not feel for him (and one of the potential lessons from the Julio epoch is to be honest and open about your feelings, at least to yourself), less than a week on the rebound is not a good time to be starting another relationship. There's an artificial intensity to what you're feeling now. That's something everyone can understand.

You didn't post anything in your blog yet! :2hands:

I've never heard of a car doing that! Is it that it failed to turn off, or that it started up by itself? Whatever's wrong, it needs to be fixed. If it was burning gas, it's a health hazard. Carbon monoxide, a product of incomplete combusion, is completely odorless & undetectable by human senses, until it kills you. Here's as good a place as any to suggest installing a carbon monoxide detector/alarm along with your smoke detector/alarm.

I'm glad you're doing better! But as far as counting the mentions of "bf"--that's probably something you should do yourself. You may be surprised. There are only 31 more mentions of Julio as "bf" or "boyfriend" (not counting occurrences in the phrase "my bf Julio", which were mentions already counted under "Julio"). Which still only makes it Julio 48, Chaz 78. But it's not only a matter of numbers; there's an issue of quality as well. What you say about Chaz is uniformly flattering or sympathetic. He's physically hot; he's got a nice family; he's just coming out of the closet, and you cry with him; he cries with you over music; he deals with loud music on the train deftly and gracefully even while sleepy; he's your ever-present sidekick through one misadventure after another, e.g., he's the one you took to your family reunion, and bonded with during that little fiasco.... Julio? Not described nearly so glowingly. There's no physical description of Julio; don't know how old he is, what he does for a living, and nothing about his family; he gets drunk, vomits all over you, makes a horrible smell, and is an embarrassment to you; he's jealous and possessive, and seems to have a propensity to physical violence; even when he tries to be nice and cook a meal for you, you don't want it because he screws up and makes things burn... I have no knowledge of your real life, but I do have knowledge of your blog. And at least in your blog, Julio clearly comes in as a distant second, both in terms of amount of attention, and the quality of that attention. Clearly, things might be different in real life, which has many more dimensions than the written word. At the same time, it is said that the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart; what you choose to write about and how you choose to say it reflects what you think is important. I don't say these things to hurt you or blame you. I'm trying to be helpful, to make you think. Pain can actually be useful if you learn something from it. If I am totally off base about the lesson to be learned, then forgive me. Still, something went wrong, and it would be worth it to try to learn what. NOT for the purpose of laying blame, but to learn to avoid it in the future, or maybe even to fix it.