[quote=So Boerd]
How does an old coot yelling naughty words at you violate your sanctity as a human being, but losing your mother does not?

Do you have some right to not be insulted but no right to a mother? Let's get our priorities straight. Pick any 100 people off the street and ask them which they prefer.

Aren't you being selfish for telling the bigot he cannot walk around yelling his foulness? It is his mouth, why can't he say anything he wants that causes no physical harm?
[/quote]

People do not have the right to not be insulted, despite how much people like to whine and cry about being offended. However, people also do not have the right to a mother either. There is no law written or unwritten that says "all children have the right to have a mother." Biologically speaking, all children do come from a mother, but that does not mean they have any right to have a mother present and in their life after being born. Hell, if you go by written law it's perfectly legal for a mother to dispense with the kid immediately by chucking it to an orphanage or arranging for some other people to adopt the thing immediately upon birth. Seems to me like there's no right involved, it's just a preference, and preferences really don't mean anything when you're talking about rights.

I happen to think that the racist should be allowed to run around saying his nonsense, just as others have the right to shout him down en masse if they disagree. I also think that people should be allowed to off themselves if they wish, just as others have the right to try to talk them out of it or be displeased with the action afterward. Freedom of choice, bodily autonomy, etc.

[quote=So Boerd]
That does not explain the inconsistency in your philosopy. Here, use my take on the examples as an example of ideological consistency.

Suicidal mother: Is bad because the mother is causing enormous life shattering pain.
Bigot: Is bad as the bigot inflicts pain to make himself feel better.
Relationship: Unlike the family, all parties are entered by choice and as such may leave by choice. You cannot simply decide one day you are not my biological parent. The incredibly strong bond between parent and child is so much stronger. I can get another girlfriend, but I only get one mother.
[/quote]

Your rebuttal to the relationship thing seems inconsistent with your reasoning for parental suicide being wrong: "all parties are entered by choice and as such may leave by choice." Why does that not also apply to parenthood? What makes parenthood so special that it has different rules? What if the parents entered into it by choice as well, why can they not also leave by choice? Why is a child not wanting their parent to leave somehow more compelling than a guy not wanting his girlfriend to leave? Considering the fact that a parent literally can leave by choice either by giving the child away or simply leaving the relationship (which you're cool with) and leaving the child with the other parent, things seem to lean toward it being legally fine to completely severing that "incredibly strong bond" you mention. Those would cause all sorts of pain as well, but they're totally within a parent's rights. Why is suicide such a special case? You have given no reason for why it should be special other than "because it makes kids feel bad," but that ranks right up there with "I'm offended" as a completely baseless justification for what is right or wrong.

Also, what about suicides by people who aren't parents? That won't cause any horrible damage to children, so going off of what you've said so far there is nothing wrong about non-parents committing suicide. How about suicide by parents whose children are adults and thus no longer dependent on them? At that point people should be able to cope with pain and loss, so if their parents bite the bullet then it should be acceptable. Oh, and pertaining to that thing you said about biological parents, what about adoptive parents with no biological children of their own committing suicide? A young kid could always get another adoptive parent, so that should be fine.

What I'm getting at here is that your very specific thing against parents committing suicide is a horrible foundation to try to base a broader anti-suicide stance on. It's shaky and full of so many holes that it's not even worth trying to salvage. You ought to just come right out with your moral and religious objections up front instead of doing the weirdly specific argument and bringing in completely unrelated analogies to try to support your claims.

[quote=So Boerd]
I do not think they are equivalent, I think suicide is much worse. And I was not talking about hate crimes, I was talking about the racial slur guy to prove how silly an ideology which sets suicide as better is. You have been forced to add violence to my racism comparison to maintain consistency.Ultimately, I find all suicide wrong on a religious level. What I can prove secularly is that parents should not commit suicide because they are already commited to obligations. When you had the child, you committed to raise it.
[/quote]

You've committed to raising a child once you have it, eh? Once more I feel the need to reference adoption as a completely legal alternative to raising a child you've had. There's also the option of leaving and paying child support, zero raising required, which is also perfectly within someone's rights to do. You still lack any solid reasoning for why suicide is bad, just things that amount to "I don't like it."

[quote=ActRaiserTheReturned]
That's why hate speech laws are retarded. /end of hijacking
[/quote]

You appear to be saying that hate crime laws are retarded because saying racist things does not kill people. By that same apparent line of thought, any laws against doing things that do not cause death are also retarded. I could list a lot of things that are illegal yet do not kill people, but I think the explanation of why this is nonsense should suffice without the examples.