Forums → WEPR → What are some controversial opinions you have and can you justify them?

That's pretty controversial. But that opens up a whole can of worms as nothing is black and white, much less blame.

If a woman is sexually assaulted and the criminal claims it was due to her wearing a miniskirt, can we say with a straight face it was her fault?

Conversely, if a person's house, in the middle of a known dangerous neighbourhood, is robbed because he openly did not lock the door and left it open, then perhaps we are more justified in saying he is to be blamed partially.

Although at the end of the day, we surely cannot say that the victim deserves any less sympathy or aid from the law.

If a person wants to commit suicide I will not try to save them because I don't believe I have the right to control the way they want to point there life to (at least as they don't have children because that is not all right). I will just acknowledge the results of there decision to them and let them choose.

Unless the person is suffering from depression, in which case you most definitely should stop them. Depression is a psychological illness that must be treated, and any impulse to end one's life while suffering from depression cannot be accepted as a thoroughly reflected decision.

Also, *their, not *there. Sorry, had to say it.

But what if euthanasia is chosen because of chronic depression after treatment fails?
Is it true to say that all depressed people are not cognizant of their own/rational enough to make their own choices?

I believe that if the person makes the decision under reasonable circumstances, they should be allowed to do assisted suicide. However, this option is mostly used, currently and in the future, for terminally ill people, in which case it is much more humane to let them die than make them live out their life in pain. Depression is not a illness that can be simply treated, it's just not that simple.

I'm actually kind of with Yellowcat on this one. If I had to choose between a depressed person killing themselves in a messy/unpleasant way and their family finding their body versus a depressed person taking a cyanide pill (or whatever), I'd choose the latter.

The main objection, though, is that depression─while not simply treatable─is not a terminal disease. Yes, people who are depressed can and do kill themselves. But unlike something like cancer, it's not the disease itself that kills the person. It gets really tricky here, though. With AIDS, for example, you don't really die of AIDS─you die of complications from AIDS. In other words, AIDS doesn't kill you; instead your immune system just sort of shuts down (as I understand it, at least─I'm not that kind of a doctor) and some other ailment ends up getting you. So it's the symptoms of AIDS that kills you rather than the disease itself.

But taking a step back from all this, I can imagine someone who is in perfect physical health but simply doesn't want to be alive anymore. Furthermore, I can imagine some compelling cases for wanting to die. It makes me sad, but there are genuinely plenty of people who just don't have anything to live for.

Again, things get really messy here. But not as messy as someone killing themselves and having their family/friends/etc. find the body. That's horrifying. If someone is determined to commit suicide, why not provide them a means to do so that will be effective, quick, and less horrifying to those around them?

As for the wonderful question nicho poses:

Is it true to say that all depressed people are not cognizant of their own/rational enough to make their own choices?

So an interview...somewhat like abortion counselling for some countries now I suppose?

Yeah. I have no idea why I used the word 'interview' there. Counselling would be a much better term. "Yes, I'd like to apply for a suicide, please." And then, should the expert(s) decide there isn't sufficient grounds for the individual ending their life, they could be referred to a therapist to help them get it sorted.

What's interesting is that I feel like this process might actually decrease the number of suicides. If you go in and are told by an expert that you objectively do have things to live for, that might be enough to get you to hold off and seek help. On the flip side, I'm now picturing what the initial counselling session would be like for someone who 'passes'. At the end of the day, you'd have an expert telling someone that their life objectively does not matter and is, in fact, not worth living. That just sounds (a) idiotic and (b) not something that a normal person would feel comfortable saying (even if it's true). This might be a terrible idea...

epression is not a illness that can be simply treated, it's just not that simple.

It sure is. Depression is an illness, like any other in that regard. Going through it is not simple at all. The treatment also evolved after ages of research. But treating it works like any other illness. It actually CAN simply be treated. Not as simply cured though.

Another controversial opinion:

Secession is rarely the solution to problems and counties/provinces should not be allowed to secede easily unless oppression can be proven. The case for the Kurds seceding seems stronger than that of Catalonia for instance.

In any case it seems much more complex than the cases being presented, which often rest on simplified arguments of ethnic lines.

Contrary to popular opinion, it should not be viewed as "undemocratic" or "tyrannical" to not allow provinces to break away easily as these elections are often not even democratic themselves. In fact one can probably make a case that for democracies to work, cooperation and giving and taking is a central plank. Yet by unilaterally and arbitrarily declaring independence, a secessionist movement is ironically trampling on democratic ideals it masks and cloaks itself in.

Most of the regions that want to have more independence or secede entirely are the richer parts of the country who don't want to pay money to the poorer parts, under the pretense that it limits their own economy. But as you put it, it is undemocratic because unilateral, also it is profoundly non-solidary*. It's the case with Catalonia and the northern Italian regions (which don't want to secede entirely, admittedly; not yet anyway)(and probably other regions as well). In the case of Catalonia, the case is even worse considering that they were already a strongly autonomous region within Spain, and now they risk losing it thanks to the escalation of the conflict between the Catalonian separatists and Madrid.

However, in the case of the Kurds, I would agree that they are entitled to have their own territory given that they are one ethnicity split across several country borders. And, yes, they are being oppressed. Sadly, it seems they declared independence too early and now lost everything again. I feel really bad about that, especially since they did so much against Daech.

*Not sure if that actually is good English; the English language seems to lack a direct adjective form of "solidarity". But "not collegial" doesn't sound strong enough in that case?

Yes, pretty iffy since 2 out of the 7 drafters of the current Spanish constitution were from Catalonia! Furthermore I don't think it pays to be too small a nation in today's times.

The secessionists manage to evoke and milk much sympathy because there were broadcast images and videos of police man handling voters. As despicable as that was, that hardly seems a good reason for secession. Not to mention that we forget how many thousands the Basque terrorist groups cased when they tried to terrorise their way to independence.

Speaking about the Kurds, I think another controversial opinion is that they aren't as cuddly, progressive and democratic as the media tries to portray them. They may have fought ISIS but so did Assad's forces who did the bulk of fighting, and Iran and Russia, but because the latter trio are the unholy trinity now, they get no credit. It's a war, everyone commits atrocities, even the feted Kurds, and whilst that absolves no one, it might be prudent to be aware that no one is innocent.

It's deceptive of the media to portray the Kurds as democratic, multicultural, progressive and feminist (Because women are in their army) when they commit the same political offences like ballot stuffing as Assad does. Nor are they even unified.

I didn't forget that while Erdogan oppresses the Kurds in Turkey, many Turks also perished in attacks by Kurdish extremists. It's possible that much of my sympathy for Kurds is media-driven, and you're right to point out that no one is innocent. Still, I feel like it is an unjust situation to have a people that, at the very least, has a common history be separated by arbitrary country borders (Catalonia, at least, is its own region). Though to be fair, I will concede that I don't know much about the historical developments that lead to the current situation, maybe I should change that before going too far into that discussion.