World highest suicide rate - Korea, Japan, Russia, India and others

[kalanirnay]

You are reporting their psychological environment from the perspective of a well-off upper middle class person. Whereas if you were in their shoe and never having known middle class life, your view would be different. Simply put any person has the capacity to adjust to their environment and their state of happiness does not depend on their material well being. Innumerable times this has been seen. There used to be regular reports in the 1980s of beggars running away from Beggar Homes established by the Municipality in Mumbai. In the Beggar Homes, a roof over head, food, clothing, and work was provided to them. Now you would think they would consider themselves fortunate to be in Beggar Homes rather than on the streets, but their repeated escaping from those institutions shows they rather preferred the freedom of the streets than the regular material comforts provided in the confined environment of the Homes..

It was wrong of you to assign any 'class' to me and assign my thinking specific to that "class". That is pure hubris. I am not on trial here.

There is something called "empathy" and if you have that, you are not required to be other's shoes. You have the ability to understand what they feel. You do not need to go to China to understand the progress China has made. You can read books, and watch films on that. You can become a scholar of China without ever having set food in china.

There is a minimum material wealth that is required for peace of mind and well being. Now this amount can vary depending on the social status, class, environment etc. But there is always a minimum threshold.

Life is not unidimensional to be measured purely on material wealth, or freedom or any other single parameter. It is multi-dimensional and we have all kinds of needs ranging from sexual, emotional, physical, spiritual, ego etc.

An imbalance in any one of these causes imbalance in life. As the scale of imbalance increases, so does the reaction to those imbalance. An extreme imbalance in any of these causes an extreme action resulting in suicide.

 

[Indrani]

It was wrong of you to assign any 'class' to me and assign my thinking specific to that "class". That is pure hubris. I am not on trial here.

The purpose of my rebuttal to you was not to establish your "class" or to assign a class to you, but to see where you are coming from. If I got that wrong and ruffled your feathers because of that, I apologize.

There is something called "empathy" and if you have that, you are not required to be other's shoes. You have the ability to understand what they feel. You do not need to go to China to understand the progress China has made. You can read books, and watch films on that. You can become a scholar of China without ever having set food in china.

Repeatedly Chinese here on this forum have told us that they are happy and proud citizens of their country and they do not need any sympathy from us. Still you persist in assuming that they are unhappy people, says about your determination to slot them as unhappy people rather than them being so. Just like the Evangelical Christians assume all Healthens must be miserable souls and need to be saved, you are another evangelical with lot of empathy.

There is a minimum material wealth that is required for peace of mind and well being. Now this amount can vary depending on the social status, class, environment etc. But there is always a minimum threshold.

That they have survived and thrived is an indication that their minimum threshold is being met.

Life is not unidimensional to be measured purely on material wealth, or freedom or any other single parameter. It is multi-dimensional and we have all kinds of needs ranging from sexual, emotional, physical, spiritual, ego etc.
An imbalance in any one of these causes imbalance in life. As the scale of imbalance increases, so does the reaction to those imbalance. An extreme imbalance in any of these causes an extreme action resulting in suicide.

Any human being just seeks to be in equilibrium with the society he exists in. If a person belongs to a tribal society living in mud huts his "extreme material imbalance" would just be his inability to have a mud hut similar to the ones the other people in his tribe have, nothing more than that. As for the rest, his/her spiritual, emotional, physical, sexual needs are met regardless of his material wealth. The very fact that our poor have not committed suicide and live in their millions in India is an indication they do not feel this extreme imbalance that you speak of.

 

[kalanirnay]

The purpose of my rebuttal to you was not to establish your "class" or to assign a class to you, but to see where you are coming from. If I got that wrong and ruffled your feathers because of that, I apologize.

No apology required. I dislike name calling because it shows prejudice and when prejudice exist it is impossible to have a rational discussion. I like your posts because they are rational.

Repeatedly Chinese here on this forum have told us that they are happy and proud citizens of their country and they do not need any sympathy from us. Still you persist in assuming that they are unhappy people, says about your determination to slot them as unhappy people rather than them being so. Just like the Evangelical Christians assume all Healthens must be miserable souls and need to be saved, you are another evangelical with lot of empathy.

China was an eg. I have not assigned either unhappiness or happiness to them as a collective. Again an assumption based on what ? pre conceived notions or prejudice ?

That they have survived and thrived is an indication that their minimum threshold is being met.

Survival is NOT an indication of a life lived well or potential realized. Has the successive generations managed to rise above the median ? if so, by what percentage ? has the median itself raised above the global median ? As per revised statistics 65 % of India is POOR. They live below the poverty line. So where is the evidence of them Thriving ?

Any human being just seeks to be in equilibrium with the society he exists in. If a person belongs to a tribal society living in mud huts his "extreme material imbalance" would just be his inability to have a mud hut similar to the ones the other people in his tribe have, nothing more than that. As for the rest, his/her spiritual, emotional, physical, sexual needs are met regardless of his material wealth. The very fact that our poor have not committed suicide and live in their millions in India is an indication they do not feel this extreme imbalance that you speak of.

I have never claimed only the poor commit suicide, or that when they do its only for monetary reason. That is again a assumption. Based on what ? a prejudice ? or a pre conceived notion ? a strawman.

My point was that religion offers a path out of hopelessness, be it for whatever reason. Money, love, shame etc. For for it to be effective you have to take steps that the religion prescribes.

 

[janon]

he point about communism was brought in because you brought US prison stats to prove religious people are more prone to crime. Just like you explained the atheists in communist countries did not kill because of atheism, the religious folks in US did not commit crime because of their religious belief. Got it?

FFS, that is precisely the point. It was juba who brought in atheism to account for suicides, and I was pointing out that atheism and religion are irrelevant to the topic. If you follow the conversation properly instead of reading individual posts out of context, this is what will happen. Did I say they committed crimes because of theism? No. There are many crimes and mass murders committed due to religion, for example in Syria and Iraq and Pakistan currently. But if you look around and read a newspaper, you would realize that nobody is killing in the name of atheism. Since you seem to have missed the rebuttal of communism, I shall patiently explain once more. Stalin and Pol Pot killed because of stupid communist and statist ideologies, not because they were atheists. That is why atheism is irrelevant. If you still don't get it, there is a limit even to my patience.

 

[Indrani]

No apology required. I dislike name calling because it shows prejudice and when prejudice exist it is impossible to have a rational discussion. I like your posts because they are rational.

How can "upper middle class" be called a pejorative or name calling? Unless of course someone is very rich as in a dollar billionaire and considers being middle class as something to look down on.

China was an eg. I have not assigned either unhappiness or happiness to them as a collective. Again an assumption based on what ? pre conceived notions or prejudice ?

Okay, I got that statement wrong.

Survival is NOT an indication of a life lived well or potential realized. Has the successive generations managed to rise above the median ? if so, by what percentage ? has the median itself raised above the global median ? As per revised statistics 65 % of India is POOR. They live below the poverty line. So where is the evidence of them Thriving ?

Potential realized and raising above median is all the modern consumerist society jargon used to keep the sales of manufactured products up. That has no bearing on how happy one is or one is not though of course marketeers make their damned best to make it seem that unless we have the latest ipad or whatever nonsense they are peddling as must haves without which life is meaningless.

From a nonconsumerist angle, population rise is an indication of thriving. You do not go to Africa and say the population of wilderbeast has increased but they are not thriving. You do not go to the forests of India and say tiger population has increased but they are not thriving.

I have never claimed only the poor commit suicide, or that when they do its only for monetary reason. That is again a assumption. Based on what ? a prejudice ? or a pre conceived notion ? a strawman.
My point was that religion offers a path out of hopelessness, be it for whatever reason. Money, love, shame etc. For for it to be effective you have to take steps that the religion prescribes.

You brought in a whole lot of stuff about extreme imbalances of a multidimensional life and what not when I simply stated that the poor of our country cannot be designated as depressed unhappy people. If you were not establishing co-relation then why bring it in. Then you topped it off with how imbalance leads to suicides to which I pointed out our poor have not committed suicide which again establishes my view point that our poor are not unhappy people. So I did not say that you were claiming our poor commit suicide, but rather you are bringing in examples which just strengthens my point that our people are not "extremely imbalanced" and hence unhappy.

I do not agree that religion offers a path out of hopelessness or whatever. I will not categorize irreligious people as hopeless or without love or suicidal. One does not even need to prescribe to any form of religion, just being spiritual is also enough.

FFS, that is precisely the point. It was juba who brought in atheism to account for suicides, and I was pointing out that atheism and religion are irrelevant to the topic. If you follow the conversation properly instead of reading individual posts out of context, this is what will happen. Did I say they committed crimes because of theism? No. There are many crimes and mass murders committed due to religion, for example in Syria and Iraq and Pakistan currently. But if you look around and read a newspaper, you would realize that nobody is killing in the name of atheism. Since you seem to have missed the rebuttal of communism, I shall patiently explain once more. Stalin and Pol Pot killed because of stupid communist and statist ideologies, not because they were atheists. That is why atheism is irrelevant. If you still don't get it, there is a limit even to my patience.

There you again try to cop-out, why would you say they killed because of atheism, all your argument is made to show religion is causing all the crimes. Did I say that atheism is causing suicides? That may be JUBA's argument, but it is not mine. My argument with you was only about your claim that religious societies are inferior to atheist societies.

No I did not miss your rebuttal on communism which I well explained in my post by agreeing to your point that communist did not kill people because they were atheists, likewise WTC did not happen because they were Islamist but because of what US was doing to their countries. Kapish? Even I have limits to my patience.

 

[janon]

There you again try to cop-out, why would you say they killed because of atheism, all your argument is made to show religion is causing all the crimes.

No, it isn't. If you read the thread from the beginning, you would realize that all my arguments to juba were that atheism or theism is irrelevant to the topic. In future read a conversation fully before barging into it.

WTC did not happen because they were Islamist but because of what US was doing to their countries. Kapish?

That's debatable. They definitely did believe in jihad and paradise and those beliefs motivated them. Even if I agree to leave that example, there are still many more examples of religious beliefs directly causing crimes. TTP. ISIS. Boko Haram. Destruction of Somnath temple in India. Sikhander Butsikhan's mass murders and pillaging of Kashmir. Please, it takes a special case of denial to pretend that religious beliefs don't contribute to many miseries.

 

[Indrani]

No, it isn't. If you read the thread from the beginning, you would realize that all my arguments to juba were that atheism or theism is irrelevant to the topic. In future read a conversation fully before barging into it.

You may have started out with rebutting JUBA on his opinion that atheism was leading to suicide, but you led the conversation down to all the ills of the world are due to religion and that is what you were trying to establish with the link you posted, which is where I got in. So I did follow your conversation full before I decided to barge in.

That's debatable. They definitely did believe in jihad and paradise and those beliefs motivated them. Even if I agree to leave that example, there are still many more examples of religious beliefs directly causing crimes. TTP. ISIS. Boko Haram. Destruction of Somnath temple in India. Sikhander Butsikhan's mass murders and pillaging of Kashmir. Please, it takes a special case of denial to pretend that religious beliefs don't contribute to many miseries.

Well, I do not need to reiterate my beliefs about Islam and its history on this forum, it is well known, but then we were not specifically talking only about Islam where we when we spoke about religions?

 

[janon]

Well, I do not need to reiterate my beliefs about Islam and its history on this forum, it is well known, but then we were not specifically talking only about Islam where we when we spoke about religions?

Again, the conversation was about religions, and islam is one of them. Also, when I mentioned christianity, juba said that the bible is corrupt and islam is the one true religion. From then on, the focus has been on the "one true religion".

Anyway, the point I wish to make to you is that religions have directly caused misery and crime. Of course now you will cop out saying those are not the "true religions", just like juba earlier said about christianity when I rebutted his points that religious morality will not change.

Long story short - the "poison of atheism" as you described it has not directly contributed so much to misery and suffering as the poisons of religion have. Atheists have done crimes and mass murders, but so have religious people (a lot more), but both those are irrelevant to the point. I wouldn't blame christianity for Hitler, I wouldn't blame atheism for Stalin. But there are many other cases where the blame squarely falls on religious beliefs. Atheism is not the poison.

 

[abjktu]

FFS, that is precisely the point. It was juba who brought in atheism to account for suicides, and I was pointing out that atheism and religion are irrelevant to the topic. If you follow the conversation properly instead of reading individual posts out of context, this is what will happen. Did I say they committed crimes because of theism? No. There are many crimes and mass murders committed due to religion, for example in Syria and Iraq and Pakistan currently. But if you look around and read a newspaper, you would realize that nobody is killing in the name of atheism. Since you seem to have missed the rebuttal of communism, I shall patiently explain once more. Stalin and Pol Pot killed because of stupid communist and statist ideologies, not because they were atheists. That is why atheism is irrelevant. If you still don't get it, there is a limit even to my patience.

Religion is ones personal thing...i don't think its bad for being religious..Even in this modern times,it keeps many people alive ,happy and a relief from sufferings...but some extremist elements(its in every religion) has used it as an excuse to create/preach hate and violence..Sadly,many good ones are falling into their hands..

 

[janon]

ut you led the conversation down to all the ills of the world are due to religion

I never said so. Please quote a post where I said that all the ills of the world are due to religion. If you can't, then drink some water, calm down, and read the conversation with a cool head. This is why unnecessary belligerence does not get you anywhere in a discussion.

 

[Indian_Devil]

Indian government's new policy to control population...

 

[janon]

Religion is ones personal thing...i don't think its bad for being religious..Even in this modern times,it keeps many people alive ,happy and a relief from sufferings...but some extremist elements(its in every religion) has used it as an excuse to create/preach hate and violence..Sadly,many good ones are falling into their hands..

I know all that. The point was that lack of religion doesn't cause mass misery in the way religious beliefs (in some people) do. Most practioners of most religions are moral and peaceful. But religious beliefs in some people have made them do horrible things. Anyway, the original point is that atheism has nothing to do with suicide rates - India has one of the highest rates, and Indians are mostly religgious people, not atheists. So cherrypicking Japan and blaming atheism for it is called the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. That was my only point to juba earlier.

 

[Indrani]

Again, the conversation was about religions, and islam is one of them. Also, when I mentioned christianity, juba said that the bible is corrupt and islam is the one true religion. From then on, the focus has been on the "one true religion".
Anyway, the point I wish to make to you is that religions have directly caused misery and crime. Of course now you will cop out saying those are not the "true religions", just like juba earlier said about christianity when I rebutted his points that religious morality will not change.
Long story short - the "poison of atheism" as you described it has not directly contributed so much to misery and suffering as the poisons of religion have. Atheists have done crimes and mass murders, but so have religious people (a lot more), but both those are irrelevant to the point. I wouldn't blame christianity for Hitler, I wouldn't blame atheism for Stalin. But there are many other cases where the blame squarely falls on religious beliefs. Atheism is not the poison.

That you are clubbing Hinduism with Abrahamic faiths when you have no evidence whatsoever of Hinduism ever supporting or committing crimes like the Abrahamic religions have done or even atheists have committed says a lot about your level of comprehension about the world. Also India stood out there as an example of a very religious country with very low crime rates and more freedom with a skeletal police force than any of the atheist countries you admire.

Atheism has its limitations though I would rate it higher than the Abrahamic religions. Should those societies turn atheists, that would certainly be progress. But compared to Hinduism, it is a retarded philosophy. So I called it "your poison," not poison in general.

I never said so. Please quote a post where I said that all the ills of the world are due to religion. If you can't, then drink some water, calm down, and read the conversation with a cool head. This is why unnecessary belligerence does not get you anywhere in a discussion.

You did so when you were trying to establish atheists societies as crime free as compared to religious societies. I hope you are above the level of literalists.

 

[janon]

That you are clubbing Hinduism with Abrahamic faiths

OK, now you are simply making stuff up to continue your internet crusade. I did not even mention hinduism, far from clubbing it with Abrahamic faiths.

And I asked you earlier to quote my post where I said that all the ills of the world are due to religion. If you cannot do that, maybe a little civility might be in order. I don't expect an apology, since that would be crediting you with a lot more integrity than you have, but the least you can do is to stop making up stupid statements and ascribing them to me.

You did so when you were trying to establish atheists societies as crime free as compared to religious societies. I hope you are above the level of literalists.

I did not say or even imply that "all the ills of the world are due to religion". It is a lie from your part. And it sums up your modus operandi on most threads - make up strawmen arguments, statements that the other person never made, and then passionately counter them. Sorry, but I have no intention of indulging you further in that.

 

[kalanirnay]

How can "upper middle class" be called a pejorative or name calling? Unless of course someone is very rich as in a dollar billionaire and considers being middle class as something to look down on.

Any kind of label comes with all kinds of pre conceived notions attached with it. Be it hindutva or middle class or upper middle class or poor or secular or whatever. It does not matter WHAT that pejorative is.

Potential realized and raising above median is all the modern consumerist society jargon used to keep the sales of manufactured products up. That has no bearing on how happy one is or one is not though of course marketeers make their damned best to make it seem that unless we have the latest ipad or whatever nonsense they are peddling as must haves without which life is meaningless.

From a nonconsumerist angle, population rise is an indication of thriving. You do not go to Africa and say the population of wilderbeast has increased but they are not thriving. You do not go to the forests of India and say tiger population has increased but they are not thriving.

The rate of population growth has actually decreases, so by your own definition it means we have stopped 'thriving'. You can see how wrong this method of measurement is.

You brought in a whole lot of stuff about extreme imbalances of a multidimensional life and what not when I simply stated that the poor of our country cannot be designated as depressed unhappy people. If you were not establishing co-relation then why bring it in. Then you topped it off with how imbalance leads to suicides to which I pointed out our poor have not committed suicide which again establishes my view point that our poor are not unhappy people. So I did not say that you were claiming our poor commit suicide, but rather you are bringing in examples which just strengthens my point that our people are not "extremely imbalanced" and hence unhappy.

Yes, the point I made was the poor has more probability of being depressed since we know for certain more of his life is in imbalance. Eg. social status, ego-satisfaction, respect, risk of hunger, lack of opportunity, health etc.

Love and other emotional support might be similar for both the rich and poor. The risk of extreme imbalance for the poor would be more for the mentioned reasons. That is why I mentioend the example, and for the fact that majority of India's population is poor, so statistically speaking more of them commit suicide than the well off.

I do not agree that religion offers a path out of hopelessness or whatever. I will not categorize irreligious people as hopeless or without love or suicidal. One does not even need to prescribe to any form of religion, just being spiritual is also enough.

To a man with an empty stomach food is God. Spirituality is not of much use to him.