Digital painting is a verb. The product of this action isn't a painting.

Being composed of paint is an objective measure.

Being classified as "art" is subjective. Or to put it another way, art (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

It depends on the perspective. From that of the supplicant, they are entirely different as prayer is a communication with another while meditation is at best a communication with oneself. However from the 3rd person perspective, they are essentially identical.

The Golden rule was supplanted by the Platinum rule awhile back for just this sort of "reasoning", namely, do unto other as they would have would have done to themselves.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but differ on some of your example interpretations.

First, pensions were a fine concept but those huge reserves made companies targets of corporate raiders who would buy the companies, transfer the pension money away, then send (their own company) into bankruptcy. Better to have an IRA and 401K with your name on it.

Second, investing sophistication is not required. A low fee S&P 500 index fund is a well appreciated foundation of personal investing. Everyone knows someone who can understand the basics of long-term investing. Especially in the current era whereby investment advice is plentiful and free.

Third, minimum wages should only be earned by teenagers, entry level folks or those whose compensation is actually made up of tips or commissions. In other words, no one should be making minimum wages alone and raising a family.

Fourth, the influence that local government has on lowering housing costs is to loosen building restrictions (or applying other incentives) to increase supply, thereby lowering costs.

You keep saying that sometimes, "killing oneself is the answer to the problem". Would you apply that to the suicides of teenagers who kill themselves after being bullied? Or to situations where a person kills themselves after being mobbed at work or losing their job?

Firstly, I apologize about the way my tone struck you. I can see (after a re-read) that A) you're using "benefit" differently than I was expecting and therefore B) in that context my question would sound flippant.

To clarify and be more complete, I absolutely agree that suicide is NOT the answer for, say, 99+% of cases (of which you, correctly named several). I was in discussion previously where the assertion was made that suicide is NEVER the answer to the problem. Whereby I cited (admittedly rare) situations where it could be. But these would be exceptions and statistically insignificant.

If it matters, I read the comment of "benefit" to mean financial benefit like a grandson, seeking an inheritance, convincing grandma to kill herself.

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy.

To be more specific, the notion that democracy ignores the external influence of power, is an illusion. But did anyone actually believe this naive concept?

If we agree that just because the majority says something doesn't make it right (in most cases, which can be mobocracy), why have we codified societal rulings on ethics and morals in our lives?

If by "codified", you mean "passed laws", I'd ask what your alternative would be? Laws based on what a small minority of the community thought was correct? Though since laws are passed by legislators (not the populace), I suppose one could argue that laws aren't passed by the majority of those governed by those laws, rather a majority of their representatives, who make up their own community.

For consumers who don't write programs, what's the difference, functionally, between local and cloud computing, aside from privacy? If privacy is the concern, current level computing power would likely perform quite nicely, meaning that even if future, higher power hardware never becomes available to consumers, I'm not seeing why local computing couldn't be performed on current tech.

What I'm getting at (and which you and several posters repeatedly refuse to address) is how much a particular person's suicide solves _other_ people's problems. And how, in some cases, it is expected that someone would take their own life, even when said person does not experience any particular pain or profound suffering.

I guess I'm just not familiar with the scenario you're describing. Whereby person A commits suicide because person B "expects" person A should do so. Specifically because B reaps a benefit from the event.

Please enlighten me about this situation. I'd think such cases would be all over the media. Perhaps I missed them.

Oh yes. To be clear, in my experience the Post Truth era applies mainly to the populace and the media just provides what sells.

Yes, it was common before "professional" journalism standards (the Society of Professional Journalists released their first code of ethics in 1973). After that (until the current Post Truth era) was notable for bias mostly retreating to the omission bias I referenced. Of course, exceptions made headlines, like the Central Park 5, but did so because they were exceptions. Now lies from officials and their online media mouthpieces are routinely reported, but no longer attract headlines, instead shrugs, because of the erosion of the value of truth.

You're correct that media has always slanted their stories towards their bias. But that was commonly through omission. Now in the Post Truth era, out and out untruths or lies are pedaled as true. There's a difference.

A wonderful, yet archaic opinion. Alas, here in the Post Truth era the purpose of "media" is to conduct "research" to find "data" that supports the pre-determined (and convenient) "conclusion" that was arrived at before the exercise started.

Another "expert" on the inner working of the minds of atheists, who has no practical experience in the subject matter. Consider the source.

Why do you say the topic is irrelevant"? The concept of infinite is commonly used in mathematics, so there must be at least some relevance.

Oh I'm not referring to the concept of infinity, that you correctly note is important. Rather what the OP specifically referenced, which is the infinite numbers between infinitely minute numbers.

You wouldn't expect completion from a thread titled "Infinity" would you?

Not really, but ignoring the infinite level of irrelevance of the topic is a pretty important omission.

The OP is correct, yet incomplete. Yes there are infinite infinities, but those infinities are infinitely irrelevant.

In my opinion it should be (and commonly is) illegal.

But to broaden the point, we agree it is unethical to shorten someone else's (one's child's) life, yet most agree it is ethical for a competent adult to shorten their own life.

Interesting review. Two things. First, what is your opinion? Is it ethical for a parent to hasten the death of their minor child? Personally it violates my moral code and I'd argue it violates the national ethical standard. After all, why write an article about a routinely acceptable occurrence.

OTOH, refusing one's own lifesaving medical treatment is routinely done and no one bats an eye ( ie it's broadly considered ethical). In fact the practice is codified in the creation of palliative care and hospice.

Alas, "cuz I said so", isn't good Philosophy.

OTOH... it is illegal and thus unethical for a parent to withhold lifesaving medical treatment from their minor child (thereby hastening the child's death), yet it is completely legal, and most agree, ethical for a competent adult to forgo lifesaving medical treatment, similarly hastening one's death.

If we define life as the most precious and unique experience for the individual who is living, and also life can be suffering, then ending it abruptly by own choice or others' recommendation due to some suffering or any other whatever reasons sounds utterly irrational and deranged act committed out of some sort of illusion.

Uummm... okay, except that isn't the common definition of life. In fact my review of the 20 definitions in Websters, doesn't find that particular nuance.

I don't see our two postings as opposing one another. Rather that they represent steps 1 and 2 in the (individual) preamble in the spectrum from spirituality to religion to organized religion.

Agree.

Oh, I think we understand each other, I'm not looking to "win", just make the point that while we're in agreement that in the vast majority of cases suicide is a mistake (a logical error), that I can imagine, admittedly rare, cases where a logical argument can be made that it could be a reasonable choice.

But who are these originators? Can you actually sketch the process because it seems a bit vague? The founders are not generally in this vein: the Buddha, or Jesus (if he was a historical person), were not empire-builders. If we take Christianity, who exactly are the originators to whom this claim is meant to apply.

The originators of spirituality were ordinary folks seeking answers to unanswerable (with the level of knowledge at the time) questions. But my original commentary pertained to organized religion specifically (as opposed to spirituality). So the goals of those who parlayed individual beliefs in the metaphysical into an institutional heirachy (which, they would lead, naturally) centered on the topic of spirituality, is what you're seeking. My guess is those folks sought personal power and wealth. I'm not so cynical to not acknowledge they didn't also personally believe they were leading society to a better place and individuals to eternal life etc. Rather that they were pursuing both goals.

Individuals who make cold lemonade from scratch in their kitchen do it to quench thirst. Those who create bottling companies, do it to make a profit, regardless of their interest in quenching the thirst of their customers.

That's the issue with non face to face communication, better if unspoken insinuations are spelled out.

I don't entirely disagree with the idea that there are numerous goals of something as large and complex as a religion, and in fact I alluded to this in my posting. Though in my mind, the opinion that is the most important is that of the originators of the religion, thus my original conclusion.

One cannot determine the success or failure of an entity without a concensus on what that entity's goal is. In my opinion, organized religion's goal is to consolidate power and wealth. From this perspective they have been spectacularly successful. From other perspectives, success (and failure) will vary.

I commend you for your honesty, though I'm not putting much stock in a generalization based on an anecdote with an N of 1.

I'll take your silence on my last question as acknowledgement that an argument can be made for shortening one's time of suffering in certain limited circumstances.

I always used to think killing oneself is committed when one is in deranged mental state or under illusions of some sort.

When some one is condoning and even actively promoting assisted killings, in most cases they seem to be motivated by their own financial gains by killing the sufferer under the disguise of act of mercy, which is immoral

Used to think? Well now that you're smarter and more experienced, what do you think now?

As to your last paragraph, I'm curious what the source of information you're using to derive your conclusion as to why folks "seem to be motivated" as you describe.

Lastly, for someone whose family and close friends have passed and are suffering from intractable pain that their doctors have no answer for and are due to die of this malady in say 1 year, would extending that to two years be preferable? How about shortening it to 6 months? Could logical arguments be made in both cases?

To sum up my points, it is illogical to recommend suicide or commit suicide, when killing oneself is not the answer to the problems whatever problem it might be.

Okay, but what about the situation when killing oneself is the answer to the problem?

The rest of your posting treats death as an option that those who don't perform suicide can avoid. Alas, everyone must address death, suicide merely alters the timing of it somewhat. I do agree with you that suicide is commonly a mistake, but there are cases when it is a reasonable course to take.

According to the observer. I'm not talking about a value judgment, rather a statistical analysis.

Well there's "natural" and there's "Natural". To use the umbrella term of Natural (describing each and every thing that occurs in Nature, including 6 inch hailstones), while accurate, adds little beyond the label. OTOH, using the term natural to describe a particular behavior of a wild animal in it's natural habitat, identifies it's common behavior, unaffected by human intervention.

In the first example, an Unnatural thing would mean artificial or man-made, in the latter case unnatural would mean unusual or aberrant.

Normal is a bullseye no dart ever hits.

Good one! Obviously folks can be normal in a few (cherrypicked) variables, but to possess the overall quality of normal (implying being normal in each and every possible variable), while possible, has never been observed.

How can a person be free from "external coercion" when they are living in a culture telling them that by failing to live up to the culture's standards they have lost the right to live?

You seem to be conflating influence with coercion, I meant the latter.

I see your usage of organically/naturally, ie without external intervention. Meaning "if left to their own devices". Though the more common lay usage would mean without human intervention, ie you would have to also be removed from the equation.

The identical surgery in a transwoman should also be social, right?
— LuckyR

Again, not necessarily. There is a difference between a trans sexual and a trans gender person. If the person is a trans sexual, this is not gender. This is the desire to embody the other sex, and changing their secondary sex characteristics to resemble the other sex is not gender.

For clarification, my understanding of the terms trans sexual and trans gender seem to differ from your usage here. That is, to my understanding transgender is an umbrella term for all folks whose (internal) gender identity does not completely conform to their biological sex, which includes those who take hormonal and surgical steps (which describes trans sexuals), but also folks who don't take those steps.

Thus why my postings have tried to delineate the borderline between sexual and gender motivations, as described in the OP. But the more I think about it, the blurrier that borderline becomes, to the point that the umbrella term of transgender seems most accurate, since it's an umbrella term, ie all TS are TG, but not all TG are TS.

Its if there is a subjective opinion that doing or not doing these things should be encouraged or limited by your sex.

So if a flat chested woman gets breast augmentation to look "feminine", that's succumbing to social preferences that women should have large breasts. The identical surgery in a transwoman should also be social, right? After all, there are examples of flat chested women, ie large chest size is not a sexual/biological marker for being XX.

And this begs another question - in what circumstances is suicide moral?

It's moral if the individual is competent, free from external coercion and dealing with permanent agony/suffering.