So, everybody thinks about suicide at least once as far as I'm concerned. I've thought about it since I was 8, it's a possible side effect of medicine I have to take, I know people who have tried and I know people who have been successful. It's bullshit. A total selfish bullshit act for chicken shit assholes. Some people are truly fucked up when they try and others are going for the most narcissistic cry for attention possible. No matter how you justify it, in reality it's just bullshit.
I've known lots of people who have died for various reasons; old age, suicide, accidental suicide (autoerotic asphyxiation), shot in a robbery, car accidents, not wearing a seatbelt, drunk drivers, tragic illness, lost at sea (lake michigan), cancer and I'm probably missing a few. There is one person Dave Shotkowski I consider the most tragic of them all. He was my high school pitching coach and an all around good guy, it was the year of the MLB strike and he had been called to Florida to pitch as a replacement player; he was down there and some mother fuckers decided to steal his wallet and shoot him. This man with a family, this super nice guy, this guy getting a chance to finally live his dream; this guy was killed for no reason at all. The epitome of tragedy. This man should not be dead. My old friend Andy Hartwig who died in a car accident should not be dead; the majority of people I've know who have died should not have when they did. This will all make sense soon
A few days ago someone I know tried really hard to kill himself. He was sedated, put on life support feeding tube and all. The guy had been acting really crazy and stupid and just plain dumb. He's a talented guy and I owe him a lot. When I first heard I was concerned for his fiance and wanted to hit him. I needed to know if he was okay and I was generally concerned. The whole time I wanted to go and punch him and call him a pussy. I was planning on visiting him; until yesterday that is. So this piece of shit made a post on facebook that was essentially an invite to go visit him in the psych ward. I've maintained contact with his fiance (I guess she broke up with him after this), and she has continued to tell me when his visiting hours are and all of that shit. Each update I just get more and more pissed off. The facebook thing was the last request; he was asking for sympathy and to me he seemed to be bragging about it. I didn't want to visit him after that, for if I did I know I would just yell at him and want to kick his ass (not good things to do to someone in the psyche ward) and I tonight I found out that I'm not alone.
Another friend of his and another one of the first to know feels the same way. Only a piece of dung would stop fighting when there are so many people who has their chance to fight. To try to give up when so many people have it taken away makes me so mad, so fucking mad. I'm not saying that everyone who tries to off them self sucks, some people need help. Asking for visitors on facebook like you're inviting them to a party is offensive to me, I've been really offended by this guy I at one point would have called a brother. If I go and visit I will yell and want to hit him, if I go and visit I will be involving myself in a situation I want no part of.
I'll finish this up similar to how I started it; suicide is fucking stupid unless it goes before tendencies and is the name of a band (even they aren't cool anymore), suicide is bullshit and selfish and all words that go along with those ideas. I have no sympathy at all. Sorry dude, I don't really want you to be a part of my life. I don't want to waste my time worrying or being sad or anything about someone who does shit like this. Fuck you dude.
While it is consistent with the prediction
of the Hypothesis,
the conclusion in my
previous post that liberals are on
average more intelligent than
conservatives may not resonate with
most people’s daily observations and
experiences. If they are more
intelligent, why are liberals – especially those
in Hollywood and academia –
so much more likely than conservatives
to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous
beliefs and ideas that stretch
credibility?
Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine
at the University of Buckingham and Editor in
Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation.
In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of
Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals
and other int
elligent people may be “clever sillies,”
who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning
to social and interpersonal domains. As I explain
in an earlier post, general intelligence –
the ability to think and reason –
likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological
mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems,
whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems,
there are other dedicated evolved psychological
mechanisms. Everyone – intelligent or not –
is evolutionarily equipped with the ability
to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems
in the social and interpersonal domains as
mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal
relationships, with the other evolved
psychological mechanisms.
Charlton suggests that the totality of all
the other evolved psychological mechanisms
(except for general intelligence) represents
what we normally call “common sense.”
Everyone has common sense.
Intelligent people, however, have a tendency
to overapply their analytical and
logical reasoning abilities derived from their
general intelligence incorrectly to such
evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result
get things wrong. In other words, liberals
and other intelligent
people lack common sense, because their
general intelligence overrides it. They think
in situations where they are supposed to feel.
In evolutionarily familiar domains such as
interpersonal relationships, feeling
usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
I personally dislike Charlton’s term “clever sillies”
– I don’t like the British usage of both words:
“clever” and “silly.” But otherwise I completely agree
with his analysis substantively. As Charlton points out,
common sense is eminently evolutionarily familiar.
Our ancestors could not have survived
a single day in their hostile environment full of predators
and enemies if they did not possess functional
common sense. That’s why it has become integral
part of evolved human nature in the form of evolved
psychological mechanisms in the social and
interpersonal domains. Because common sense is
evolutionarily familiar and thus natural, the Hypothesis
would predict that more intelligent people may be
less likely to resort to it. They may be more likely to
resort to evolutionarily
novel, non-common sensical, stupid ideas to solve
problems in the evolutionarily familiar domains.
This, incidentally, is the reason I never use words like
“smart” and “clever” as synonyms for “intelligent.”
Similarly, I never use words like “dumb” and “stupid”
as synonyms for “unintelligent.” “Intelligent” has a
specific scientific meaning – possessing higher levels
of general intelligence – whereas “smart” and “stupid”
have more to do with common sense than intelligence.
From my perspective, more intelligent people like
liberals are more likely to be “stupid” (lacking common sense),
whereas less intelligent people like conservatives
are more likely to be “smart.”
Once again, Matt Stone and Trey Parker –
the co-creators of South Park– get it perfectly.
In the
episode “Go God Go XII,” the Wise One
(the elderly leader of atheist otters) says,
with reference to Richard Dawkins:
of the Hypothesis,
the conclusion in my
previous post that liberals are on
average more intelligent than
conservatives may not resonate with
most people’s daily observations and
experiences. If they are more
intelligent, why are liberals – especially those
in Hollywood and academia –
so much more likely than conservatives
to say and do stupid things and hold incredulous
beliefs and ideas that stretch
credibility?
Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine
at the University of Buckingham and Editor in
Chief of Medical Hypotheses, may have an explanation.
In his editorial in the December 2009 issue of
Medical Hypotheses, Charlton suggests that liberals
and other int
elligent people may be “clever sillies,”
who incorrectly apply abstract logical reasoning
to social and interpersonal domains. As I explain
in an earlier post, general intelligence –
the ability to think and reason –
likely evolved as a domain-specific evolved psychological
mechanism to solve evolutionarily novel problems,
whereas, for all evolutionarily familiar problems,
there are other dedicated evolved psychological
mechanisms. Everyone – intelligent or not –
is evolutionarily equipped with the ability
to solve such evolutionarily familiar problems
in the social and interpersonal domains as
mating, parenting, social exchange, and personal
relationships, with the other evolved
psychological mechanisms.
Charlton suggests that the totality of all
the other evolved psychological mechanisms
(except for general intelligence) represents
what we normally call “common sense.”
Everyone has common sense.
Intelligent people, however, have a tendency
to overapply their analytical and
logical reasoning abilities derived from their
general intelligence incorrectly to such
evolutionarily familiar domains and as a result
get things wrong. In other words, liberals
and other intelligent
people lack common sense, because their
general intelligence overrides it. They think
in situations where they are supposed to feel.
In evolutionarily familiar domains such as
interpersonal relationships, feeling
usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.
I personally dislike Charlton’s term “clever sillies”
– I don’t like the British usage of both words:
“clever” and “silly.” But otherwise I completely agree
with his analysis substantively. As Charlton points out,
common sense is eminently evolutionarily familiar.
Our ancestors could not have survived
a single day in their hostile environment full of predators
and enemies if they did not possess functional
common sense. That’s why it has become integral
part of evolved human nature in the form of evolved
psychological mechanisms in the social and
interpersonal domains. Because common sense is
evolutionarily familiar and thus natural, the Hypothesis
would predict that more intelligent people may be
less likely to resort to it. They may be more likely to
resort to evolutionarily
novel, non-common sensical, stupid ideas to solve
problems in the evolutionarily familiar domains.
This, incidentally, is the reason I never use words like
“smart” and “clever” as synonyms for “intelligent.”
Similarly, I never use words like “dumb” and “stupid”
as synonyms for “unintelligent.” “Intelligent” has a
specific scientific meaning – possessing higher levels
of general intelligence – whereas “smart” and “stupid”
have more to do with common sense than intelligence.
From my perspective, more intelligent people like
liberals are more likely to be “stupid” (lacking common sense),
whereas less intelligent people like conservatives
are more likely to be “smart.”
Once again, Matt Stone and Trey Parker –
the co-creators of South Park– get it perfectly.
In the
episode “Go God Go XII,” the Wise One
(the elderly leader of atheist otters) says,
with reference to Richard Dawkins:
“Perhaps the Great Dawkins wasn’t so wise.
Oh, he was intelligent, but some of the
most intelligent otters that I’ve ever known
were completely lacking in common sense.”
