Suicide on 9/11 - Damned?

Originally posted by Palynka
It's an interesting point, but by your definition the individual can only choose between two forms of suicide(edit: since he chooses the timing whether he jumps or not). I believe that your definition is therefore incomplete. Can one be forced to commit suicide?

I'm getting a little tired of having people argue that someone who goes to the ledge on the 90th story, crosses themselves and then jumps, didn't commit suicide. Think up any definition you wish, but it is still someone deciding the actual moment of their death as well as the circumstance of it. To argue otherwise is not rational. It was still possible that they could have been rescued.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
marauder, these jumpers weren't committing suicide. They were victims of an act of terror.

You are making the unacceptable assumption these jumpers committed suicide and then you ask the question whether they are eternally damned.

You are confusing the perpetrator and the victim.

Asserting that it wasn't suicide is not an argument; please actually make one.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why not? Is it your claim that Darfius is wrong?

These are side issues and have nothing to do with the fact that these jumpers did not commit suicide, but were the victims of an act of terror. Hence my answer still stands. They are not eternally damned because they "jumped".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm getting a little tired of having people argue that someone who goes to the ledge on the 90th story, crosses themselves and then jumps, didn't commit suicide. Think up any definition you wish, but it is still someone deciding the actual moment of their death as well as the circumstance of it. To argue otherwise is not rational.

Unless they believed they could fly. Or they actually could fly.

On the other hand, if they chose to stay in the building, then isn't it suicide unless they thought they were impervious to fire?

The answer in my eyes is neither way was suicide. They had no option other than to die, they merely chose how they would die. The height of the floor they jumped from chose when.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm getting a little tired of having people argue that someone who goes to the ledge on the 90th story, crosses themselves and then jumps, didn't commit suicide. Think up any definition you wish, but it is still someone deciding the actual moment of their death as well as the circumstance of it. To argue otherwise is not rational.

You're tired because you can't argue against it. And you keep repainting the situation in a pathetically cartoonish way (leaving the burning building out of the picture) which doesn't make you more correct in any way.

Your definition is contradictory because one cannot be forced to commit suicide. Define suicide as you will, but if suicide can be forced, which can by your definition, then I will continue to disagree.

If an individual didn't jump he would also decide the actual moment of his death and the circumstance of it, simply because he had the choice of jumping. So basically, by your definition, he was forced into choosing two types of suicide.

I repeat: Can someone be forced into commiting suicide? Isn't that murder (terrorism in this case)?

Originally posted by fooey
Unless they believed they could fly. Or they actually could fly.

On the other hand, if they chose to stay in the building, then isn't it suicide unless they thought they were impervious to fire?

The answer in my eyes is neither way was suicide. They had no option other than to die, they merely chose how they would die. The height of the floor they jumped from chose when.

No. The fire could have went out; an airplane or helicopter could have reached them, etc. etc. etc. These were possibilities, although unlikely ones. None of us have the option to not die in the end, but suicide is thought to be morally wrong in Christian dogma because we are deciding when to end our life, which is God's prerogative not ours.

Originally posted by Palynka
You're tired because you can't argue against it. And you keep repainting the situation in a pathetically cartoonish way (leaving the burning building out of the picture) which doesn't make you more correct in any way.

Your definition is contradictory because one cannot be forced to commit suicide. Define suicide as you will, but if suicide can be force ...[text shortened]... peat: Can someone be forced into commiting suicide? Isn't that murder (terrorism in this case)?

Parroting the same thing over and over again is not an argument. These people were not "forced" to jump; they choose to. The fact that they wound up in the circumstance due to the actions of others is not relevant to their choice. You are being illogical and irrational; they still possessed the free will to decide the timing of their deaths.

I don't think someone can be held liable for murder for "causing" someone else to commit suicide.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Asserting that it wasn't suicide is not an argument; please actually make one.

You are confusing the perpetrators and their victims. It is not a matter of arguement. It is a matter of not being able or not willing to see what was happening that day. You are reasoning not only in a very legalistic and formal way, you also are guilty of an unacceptable form of reductionism by not being prepared to take into account what really happened that day. These "jumpers" whom you accuse of committing suicide were actually victims of an act of terror. You are turning things upside down. Accusing those jumpers of suicide is heartless, inhumane and monstruous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Parroting the same thing over and over again is not an argument. These people were not "forced" to jump; they choose to. The fact that they wound up in the circumstance due to the actions of others is not relevant to their choice. You are being illogical and irrational; they still possessed the free will to decide the timing of their deaths.

Read again. I did not say they were forced to jump. I said they were forced two choose between two types of deaths.

And the parrot accusing of parroting added a touch of irony. Well done.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are confusing the perpetrators and their victims. It is not a matter of arguement. It is a matter of not being able or not willing to see what was happening that day. You are reasoning not only in a very legalistic and formal way, you also are guilty of an unacceptable form of reductionism by not being prepared to take into account what really happened t ...[text shortened]... ing things upside down. Accusing those jumpers of suicide is heartless, inhumane and monstruous.

You're being irrational. They were both victims of an act of terrorism AND suicides.

Originally posted by Palynka
Read again. I did not say they were forced to jump. I said they were forced two choose between two types of deaths.

And the parrot accusing of parroting added a touch of irony. Well done.

Please actually answer the points raised.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Parroting the same thing over and over again is not an argument. These people were not "forced" to jump; they choose to.

The people who remained in the building and died in the flames were not forced to stay. They chose to. They could forsee the immediate consequences of staying. There is no difference between staying and jumping, other than the fact that jumping is often employed as an means of suicide, while reamaing in a burning building is a less-often chosen method. You have made an incorrect generalization that all cases of jumping from buildings are an act of suicide.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please actually answer the points raised.

I did.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No. The fire could have went out; an airplane or helicopter could have reached them, etc. etc. etc. These were possibilities, although unlikely ones. None of us have the option to not die in the end, but suicide is thought to be morally wrong in Christian dogma because we are deciding when to end our life, which is God's prerogative not ours.

They could have landed on a fat american passerby, or a stack of donuts. These are probabilites and not much less likely. I still find it hard to define that act as suicide, it was just a judgement call based on the best chance of survival and the more preferable way to die.

There's a lot of things thought morally wrong in christian dogma, it certainly doesn't stop me doing them, and it doesn't seem to prevent christians from doing them either. They seem to pick and choose which ones they wish to follow, preach or ignore.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being irrational. They were both victims of an act of terrorism AND suicides.

marauder: "You're being irrational."

Could you please elaborate on this.

marauder: "They were both victims of an act of terrorism AND suicides.

Could you elaborate, please ? Are you equating in some way the perpetrators's actions with the jumpers's actions here ?