Popcorn Sutton Posted March 10, 2013 Author Posted March 10, 2013 Don't straw man me. I didn't say it was sibling rivalry.
dimreepr Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Ok, so what did you mean? Sibling rivalry wasn’t explicitly mentioned, in the OP, nevertheless it was strongly implicit.
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 10, 2013 Author Posted March 10, 2013 I said that there was almost certainly sexual activity between the siblings.
dimreepr Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Sibling rivalry aside, suggesting an incestuous relationship is the only or prime cause for suicide is just plain ridiculous not to mention idiotic, how is that not disrespectful to those who are truly suffering?
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 10, 2013 Author Posted March 10, 2013 maybe it will help them understand that they are not the only ones? It's therapeutic to know that plenty other people have done the same thing.
dimreepr Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Show some/any evidence that this assertion has any validity. Good luck.
Ophiolite Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 I said that there was almost certainly sexual activity between the siblings. That is a wholly unwarranted assumption. I did not pick up on the fact that this was your belief. It would be perfectly reasonable to explore in a properly conducted, ethically founded study, to what extent incestuous relationships had led to suicide. To casually toss it out there in a public forum just because it makes you feel better is reprehensible. Well, linguistically, audacity is vacuous, which can be seen as fallacious and could prompt emotional response. People are people, psychology is suffering from the same problem linguistics was suffering from before I called them out on it, and that is categorization (labeling). Psychological attributes are materialistically undefined and therefor irrelevant. If I were to give a material definition to audacity, it would be a unit of knowledge, which is extremely difficult to point to an object that equates to this concept. Even if we did find the object that equates to this concept, it would probably be some kind of sound that caused it to take shape, which means that it only arises within specific contexts, probably around specific words or phrases. I don't know enough about Ophiolite to say what would have prompted that specific word. Equating casual observation for research is audacious. More precisely, it is recklessly audacious. You don't need to know anything about me to understand that such a characterisation is wholly appropriate. You just have to understand English. What prompted the word was your reckless audacity. She (?) Also overgeneralizes when she says I offended science (which may also be ad hominem). Thinking that casual observations equate to research is offensive. It offends those scientists who work diligently and professionally to conduct their research. Do you think it is acceptable to demean their efforts in that way?
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 10, 2013 Author Posted March 10, 2013 I'm not trying to demean anyone. I'm bring straw manned here. All I did was profess an observation I made. I never claimed that it was true or held for everyone.
Moontanman Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) It's an interesting proposition, I have indeed planned suicide, I know exactly how I would do it. For now far to many people would be hurt terribly if i did it but at some point that might change, possibly i have held off because i have two siblings I have never had sex with... Edited March 10, 2013 by Moontanman
mooeypoo Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 I said that there was almost certainly sexual activity between the siblings. ! Moderator Note Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make it better, it actually makes it worse. We are not a randomly-guess-whatever-I-feel-like forum, we're a science forum. Supposed correlation based on a couple of personal experience are not actual correlation, and correlation in itself does not necessarily imply causation. Do you have any actual evidence to produce in this thread? Because that's what you're required to do when you make claims -- especially such broad and disputed ones. Even the Speculation forum requires it. As it goes, the OP isn't even in the realm of "speculation" without any proper substantiation, as multiple people have tried to point out to you.
ajb Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 All cases I know are between two siblings and only two siblings. None of them had any other siblings. Just one sibling of the opposite gender. That maybe true for your experiences, that is all well and good, but I assure you it is not strictly true.
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 11, 2013 Author Posted March 11, 2013 Ok guys, it seems that this became a little more controversial than I expected. I don't want to put myself on the line for this one anymore. My friends cousin killed himself, that is what prompted me to post. I'm not accepting the burden of proof on this one.
CaptainPanic Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 In that case, would you mind if we just close the thread, and ask anyone else who would like to discuss anything related to open a new thread with a new scientific question or statement? (This is a question asked from a moderator point of view, even if it doesn't come in a big green or red banner).
Popcorn Sutton Posted March 11, 2013 Author Posted March 11, 2013 Yea be my guest. I'm wondering why I'm not getting notifications right now. Theyre not being sent to my email.
CaptainPanic Posted March 11, 2013 Posted March 11, 2013 ! Moderator Note The thread has never really had a clearly defined topic, and after brief discussion with the author of the first post, has been closed. Those who wish to discuss anything related are invited to open a new thread. Please make sure to clearly explain the topic of the thread again. All questions regarding notifications can be placed here. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts