National Mall Immolation 2013

[Iamwhomiam]

With all due respect, 8bit, your response really doesn't answer any of the questions asked of you.

Have a great time while you're away from home.

[Iamwhomiam]

I have performed cpr on two different people with success, have responded appropriately with two different individuals having gran mal seizures, talked a friend out of murder/suicide. However, in all honesty, I doubt the thought of saving his life would have crossed my mind. Not sure I could judge him anymore than Those who tried to save him.

It would be a spontaneous judgment call. Would danger to yourself be a determining factor for your not interfering?

Aside from the flames, I see I see no difference why in one case you would prevent someone from exercising their free will to die and in the other you doubt you would even think about saving another. Perhaps had you foreknowledge of his planned suicide by fire, would you have tried to talk him out of it? Why?

[mentalgongfu2]

IamwhoIam said:

Carol says we have no right to interfere with his or anyone's right to free expression. I suppose we must let our mass murders kill away at will until they tire of it, huh? After all, he is entitled to express himself unimpeded, right? Regular ol' performance art. Street theater you could call it.

Knowingly allowing someone to commit suicide is in no way equivalent to knowingly allowing someone to commit murder.

Do we really need to debate that? The question of whether there is a moral imperative to intervene or not intervene in a suicide attempt is radically different than the question of intervening in a murder attempt.

[jcivil]

Gentleman self imolated at the start of the "first gulf war".

He was too right.

Mocked and dismissed, he was too right.

Say this folk left no words to explain...?

It was at the death capitol, the smiling generous death capitol.

'nuff said.

If the helpful joggers were shot and their families eviscerated on tv it would not imbalance the evils... upsetting peoples morning, their morning can burn with the 50,000 a day we lead to slaughter.

like: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/show ... p?t=187870

[Carol Newquist]

The dismissing of this form of protest is interesting when you consider some (not all, but some...and note, I'm not naming any names....if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it) doing the dismissing are also emphatic proponents of the Arab Spring, yet per this 2012 article from The New Yorker, an auto-cremation protest helped ignite that same Arab Spring. So, is it only acceptable and a valuable form of protest when it's Middle Easterners and Tibetans? Here in the U.S., the only acceptable form of protest is to sleep, group and shit in a privately-owned park in Manhattan until you're kicked out without much resistance? Help me understand the contradiction.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/05/history-of-self-immolation.html

A Terrible Act of Reason: When Did Self-Immolation Become the Paramount Form of Protest?

Suddenly, self-immolation is everywhere. Yesterday, in Oslo, a man set himself on fire outside the Anders Breivik trial. He follows at least forty Tibetans who have set themselves aflame to protest Chinese rule in the past year. There have also been a series of self-immolations in the Middle East and North Africa. In January, five young Moroccan men auto-cremated (the more accurate term; “self-immolation” technically means any form of self-destruction) following a fifty-two-year-old pensioner in Jordan and an elderly woman in Bahrain. The young men belonged to a group called Unemployed Graduates that had been occupying the Ministry of Higher Education building. They followed upon the action of Mohammed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor, whose self-immolation—inspired by the chronic poverty and corruption of his country—helped incite the Arab Spring.

More at link.

What's interesting about this article is that the author cannot come to accept this as an effective form of protest, even though the author states it is effective in the very first paragraph. Instead, the author prefers much more benign forms of protests like sit-ins and such. That's the position of entitlement, someone inured and inoculated from life on the street that they can haughtily snub their effete nose at something as insensible as auto-cremation.

[8bitagent]

The dismissing of this form of protest is interesting when you consider some (not all, but some...and note, I'm not naming any names....if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it) doing the dismissing are also emphatic proponents of the Arab Spring, yet per this 2012 article from The New Yorker, an auto-cremation protest helped ignite that same Arab Spring. So, is it only acceptable and a valuable form of protest when it's Middle Easterners and Tibetans? Here in the U.S., the only acceptable form of protest is to sleep, group and shit in a privately-owned park in Manhattan until you're kicked out without much resistance? Help me understand the contradiction.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/05/history-of-self-immolation.html

A Terrible Act of Reason: When Did Self-Immolation Become the Paramount Form of Protest?

Suddenly, self-immolation is everywhere. Yesterday, in Oslo, a man set himself on fire outside the Anders Breivik trial. He follows at least forty Tibetans who have set themselves aflame to protest Chinese rule in the past year. There have also been a series of self-immolations in the Middle East and North Africa. In January, five young Moroccan men auto-cremated (the more accurate term; “self-immolation” technically means any form of self-destruction) following a fifty-two-year-old pensioner in Jordan and an elderly woman in Bahrain. The young men belonged to a group called Unemployed Graduates that had been occupying the Ministry of Higher Education building. They followed upon the action of Mohammed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor, whose self-immolation—inspired by the chronic poverty and corruption of his country—helped incite the Arab Spring.

More at link.

What's interesting about this article is that the author cannot come to accept this as an effective form of protest, even though the author states it is effective in the very first paragraph. Instead, the author prefers much more benign forms of protests like sit-ins and such. That's the position of entitlement, someone inured and inoculated from life on the street that they can haughtily snub their effete nose at something as insensible as auto-cremation.

It's just the matter of life. Real sanctity of life, not the right wingtard meaning of the word. It's technically the most extreme form of protest, but I also oppose suicide. Belgium alone reports nearly 5000 voluntary medically assisted euthenasia which to me is just too bizarre to understand. And within this context I want to vomit in my mouth when I hear Obama and Kerry talk about the unthinkable horror of *insert violent event in America* yet
thinks nothing of snuffing out a village in Pakistan with sky robots.

Also pro Arab spring people never talk about the inconvenient fact that many in the tipping spear of the Arab spring still will continue to abuse and downplay women and women's rights. Just google "sexual assault Egyptian protests". Salafists, working class protestors...either the FGM women of Egypt still are kept down by patriarchy on steroids.

And truth be told, as harmful as this shut down might be, I can't say I'm entirely opposed to it.

[Carol Newquist]

I don't really look at suicide as something I'm for or against. It's a very personal decision and ultimately a choice. So long as the person who does it doesn't bring others to their involuntary death in the process, I respect their decision. It's a known fact, that if someone truly wants to commit suicide, there is no way of preventing it....and really, why should we? Wouldn't that be like a form of detention or incarceration for them? Like I said earlier, for some, and soon perhaps many, life is painful and torturous....and taking their life is a form of liberation from it.

Take this guy, for example. He died beautifully and peacefully on his own terms rather than allowing his disease to ravage him any further. Why does the U.S. deny such a dignified and humane response to personal suffering? Hell, we do it for our animals...and even to the most sadistic, harshest criminals, but not us ordinary folk....no, you must survive and suffer until the System says it's through with you. Here's an excellent Frontline documentary from PBS entitled The Suicide Tourist. It made me cry....and I seldom do....cry. But it was a nice, sweet kind of cry.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1430431984/

[Nordic]

"Carol" seems to be here just to piss people off and start fights. Do you really enjoy that, Carol? Why?

At any rate, we all have a moral imperative to try to prevent others from killing themselves if the situation arises. I've done it more than once, and each time it was unquestionably the right decision.

If you're determined to kill yourself you can always do it in complete privacy.

I can't believe this would even be a topic of dispute.

[seemslikeadream]

and if you get pissed off and you're Irish....step away from the keyboard

[Carol Newquist]

we all have a moral imperative to try to prevent others from killing themselves if the situation arises.

Says who? There is no moral imperative, especially when someone's suicide is a form of protest. Yes, I understand the impulse for some people to intervene, but don't categorize that impulse as a moral imperative. It's not.

[Carol Newquist]

If you're determined to kill yourself you can always do it in complete privacy.

I'm not determined to kill myself, but if I was, I would do it in whatever manner I pleased so long as I didn't harm others in the process. I don't need you to tell me where and how I can do it. It's my choice, if I wanted to make it. You don't get a say. That's the beauty of suicide.

[Carol Newquist]

I can't believe this would even be a topic of dispute.

Why can't you believe it would be up for debate? I think it's a perfect topic for debate and discussion. There are no moral absolutes that apply to suicide and suicide as protest. If you think there are, you're engaging in Fundamentalist thinking.

[8bitagent]

I'm going to disagree with Carol. Let's say someone wants to off themselves in a park like this guy did. A family is having a nice picnic with kids running around. And a guy, by himself blows his brains out and a couple of the kids happen to see it and the ensuing cops and paramedics and pandemonium. If your thesis is the 13 month old in the car of the woman in DC shot will have some imprinted mental trauma down the road, certainly children would would see this would be scarred.

[Carol Newquist]

That's actually a great point, 8bitagent. The best rebuttal I've heard. There would clearly be some form of trauma in seeing this as a child, but could that traumatic experience be mitigated, or understood, if a coherent message accompanied it? Surely children would ask "why did he do that?" What would the answer be? Some people are crazy? You keep alluding to this man's suicide as crazy? Why? How can you be so certain he's "crazy?" Is committing suicide the act of an irrational, crazy person? Sometimes, perhaps, but certainly not as a rule. Making a spectacle of it as a form of protest isn't necessarily crazy either.

So, let's look at both acts. We'll have to wait and see if the auto-cremator had a message. I think he did, so let's hope the "authorities" allow it to be disseminated. If so, the message is more than likely positively intended. So his act was intended as a positive act....that people will be shocked, nay even traumatized, out of their stupor so they can see a different reality. The same cannot be said for the murdering of that woman in front of her child. There is no positive intent with that act. Both acts involve trauma. The former is for a noble reason, as misguided as you believe it to be, the latter is for no good reason.

It's a desperate act, for sure. We live in a traumatic world....and a lot of the trauma is unnecessarily inflicted out of avarice and greed. Perhaps that's the message of the auto-cremation. Some don't feel this desperation, but others surely do. Is it something I would do? Not on your life. Would I let my children see it, or would I shield them? I'm not sure. We brought them in with us as the vet was putting our dog down....they were there for its death....we felt it was necessary for them to witness it. Were they traumatized? Probably. Was that trauma necessary and understandable? Yes, I think so. Was the trauma of the child who witnessed its mother being shot dead necessary and justified? No way.

[elfismiles]

Still no name nor motive in the news.