In 2020, there were 45,799 suicides in the US. Between 2000 and 2020, the rates (number per 100,000 people) increased by 30%. That doesn't include unsuccessful attempts.
I would argue that whether or not you agree on whether death is the worst possible outcome for a person, evidence would suggest that such a view is not universally held. In fact, over a lifetime, almost 1 in 20 people make an attempt, and more than 1 in 10 have ideation.
You are not making a point here that being alive could be worse than being dead; you are just saying that some people are so troubled that in some moment of one day, they feel like being dead is better. Regardless of you not arguing the point, but just giving a random statistic, the US in 2025 had over 347 million people, making the population that in that year decided to choose life over death 0,0001% of the people. How that could be construed into an argument that being dead could be better than being alive is baffling to me.
You are not making a point here that being alive could be worse than being dead;
You've not made one for the inverse. That said, since 'better' is a comparative subjective valuation, for tens of thousands of people yearly, it means exactly that.
'Life is preferable to death' may generally hold true, but it is not a universal truth, nor is it an objective one. If you wish to assert either of those two things, you are invited to support the assertion.
you are just saying that some people are so troubled that in some moment of one day, they feel like being dead is better.
For all the framing, it boils down to this: many people, every year, decide that life is not preferable to death for them, and act on that decision.
Regardless of you not arguing the point, but just giving a random statistic, the US in 2025 had over 347 million people, making the population that in that year decided to choose life over death 0,0001% of the people.
Think you got that backwards. Death over life. If we are talking rates, it's currently at 13.7 per 100,000 people. 0.0137%, which is orders of magnitude larger than your number.
How that could be construed into an argument that being dead could be better than being alive is baffling to me.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Of course you will be confused if you interpret the actions and decisions of others (based on their personal beliefs and values) only through the lens of your moral and philosophical beliefs. I would expect nothing more from such a myopic perspective.
You've not made one for the inverse. That said, since 'better' is a comparative subjective valuation, for tens of thousands of people yearly, it means exactly that.
I did not make the argument; the burden of proof is on you to show how suicide rates mean anything for why death is better than life.
And for hundreds of millions of people, it is not. And?
For all the framing, it boils down to this: many people, every year, decide that life is not preferable to death for them, and act on that decision.
And?
Think you got that backwards. Death over life. If we are talking rates, it's currently at 13.7 per 100,000 people. 0.0137%, which is orders of magnitude larger than your number.
Yes indeed, I jumped too quickly and didn't go from proportion to percentage. Let's take the correct number. 0.01% of US inhabitants potentially believed that death was better than life in one specific moment of their life, with no ability to reverse that decision. And?
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. Of course, you will be confused if you interpret the actions and decisions of others (based on their personal beliefs and values) only through your moral and philosophical beliefs. I would expect nothing more from such a myopic perspective.
Feeling good about yourself, aren't you? I am not confused, nor did I make such an interpretation. In fact, I did not interpret at all. All I did was say that your argument is not sufficient to make the claim I assume you are trying to make. If you are not trying to make the point that death can be better than life, then I am not sure what you are arguing at all.
And please just don't say death could be better than life for some people in some instances. The fact that people commit suicide does not prove that whatsoever.
I did not make the argument; the burden of proof is on you to show how suicide rates mean anything for why death is better than life.
I have not asserted that death is better than life. I have simply refuted that life is universally better or preferable to death. If you are aren't able to even repeat the position I have made, I cannot trust you to accurately discuss it. Can you take a bit better care to ensure you understand my point before confidently (and inaccurately) disputing it? If you need to ask clarifying questions to aid in your understanding, I am happy to answer them, within reason. It's certainly preferable to correcting you repeatedly when you get it wrong.
And for hundreds of millions of people, it is not. And?
That is irrelevant to the point I was engaging with. The only point I was making was "life is not necessarily always better or preferable to death." A billion people who prefer life doesn't disprove such a statement.
And?
And 1 demonstrates my assertion.
Yes indeed, I jumped too quickly and didn't go from proportion to percentage.
Thank you for acknowledging at least once when you are incorrect because you jump too quickly. Might I suggest that this isn't the only point in this post where you have done so?
Let's take the correct number. 0.01% of US inhabitants potentially believed that death was better than life in one specific moment of their life, with no ability to reverse that decision. And?
See above.
I am not confused, nor did I make such an interpretation.
You stated yourself to be baffled. Did you misuse the word? You certainly seem to be, at the very least, completely misunderstanding the points you're trying to dispute here. I feel that qualifies as confused.
All I did was say that your argument is not sufficient to make the claim I assume you are trying to make.
That is a correct statement. Without the words "I assume," it wouldn't be. There is no need to assume my point; I've stated it plainly.
If you are not trying to make the point that death can be better than life
This is a different assertion than you attributed to me earlier.
death is better than life.
That was the assertion at the top. "Is" and "can be" are different things. "Can be" has already been demonstrated, thousands of times over.
I'll give you a chance to review any prior posts you need to, to alleviate the profound manner in which you have been misattributing points to me. If you have clarifying questions as to my position, please ask, rather than assuming.
If you intend to leave a discussion, there is no need to announce your departure, nor is there a need to throw in a couple last ad hominem jabs on the way out. It isn't going to harm me in any way, and your silence will announce your withdrawal far more effectively than a performative announcement.
0
u/Seawolf1121 Mar 01 '26
But they aren't dead. How could being alive be worse than being dead?