I had said that, if you are incapable of providing a person hope and giving them reasons to live, by alievating their suffering, or at least giving them reasons for being in it, and argue the person should end it all, you are weak.  I can base it simply on the definition of weak being the incapability to overcome problems face in front of you.  I had asked those who are pro-suicide to own up to the fact that they ARE weak, and feel that the only answer some of the time is for those with real bad problems, and feeling hopeless to end it, because you CAN'T help them.  Care to argue those who argue for suicide are NOT weak, in that, they can do stuff to remove reasons for someone to kill themselves... but the REFUSE to?  If you can and don't what does that make you?

Fine, argue you are loving and compassionate and feel that it is for the best, but also own up that you reach the conclusion that suicide is an option because you are POWERLESS to change the situation, thus weak.

@Kasz216:

Corporations influence governments but rarely in the "direct bribe" way that people like to popularize.

It doesn't have to be a "direct bribe", but it's a bribe nonetheless (or maybe manipulation in a way).

The power of lobbying is MUCH less pronounced then that, though still fairly powerful.  I mean, say you have two points of view that you are fairly undecided on, and then you know a guy who has one point of view and he's a great guy and he's going out to dinner with you and argeing why this is a good idea while there is noone argueing the other side.

That's pretty effective.  Lobbiests value isn't in outright bribing or demanding or anything like that like we like to imagine for entertainment value.

That's terrible in itself. It's essentially a politicia being influenced by the representative of a special interest group to make a decision that's beneficial to that group. A politician should make the best decision for the citizens who elected him, not listening to some "great guy" who's lobbying for some corporation.

Microsoft couldn't get new anti-piracy laws passed, so it's trying by a state by state basis... but even then in action the laws will probably be canceled after the legislators realize what the laws are.  (They're trying to make it so that if you receive products from companies that use pirated software, you can't sell them.  So if you make radios, and you buy radio antenaes from a company that uses a pirated version of excel... you cant't sell your radios.  Considering something like 40-60% of buisnesses use pirated software....)

This law seems ridiculous, though the fact that such a huge number of businesses use pirated software is alarming, and I understand Microsoft's desire to make them pay.

Like Corporations ability to game the legal system and basically force people who are innocent to settle because they can bring to bear their entire finanical pressure against a single dude.  See Sony V Hotz... had Hotz not opened up a defense fund he would of already had to settle a case that has no legal standing to even be held in California.

Yes, this is terrible. Corporations have an unfair advantage due to their huge resources, that's for sure. This is why it would be better if resources weren't an issue somehow.

So it's bribery, no? IS that any better?

As for Bill Gates, well I like him, I'd vote for him.

The legal definition of "sound mind":

SOUND MIND

That state of a man's mind which is adequate to reason and comes to a judgment upon ordinary subjects, like other rational men.

source: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s163.htm

Now the paragraph I bolded raises an interesting issue. But there are some situations when the underlying issue cannot be adressed. Plus, what if a person finds out they suffer from a terminal illness and decide to kill themselves now, painless and quickly, rather than go thorugh all the pain and anguish?

Still, at the end of the day this is an issue of personal freedom.

I think that's one of the worst definitions of weak I've ever heard.  By using this, you would be able to come up with problems that every human on the face of the planet is unable to solve (i.e. money problems, governmental problems, family problems...anything really), so every single human on Earth is weak if you use that definition.

Not to mention, you are assuming that somebody else committing suicide is a problem for me, therefore making me weak because I'm unable to solve their willingness to commit suicide (although as indicated, I never said I'm unable to solve suicide, nor am I unwilling to help somebody if they ask for help, or if they indicate when asked that they want my help). 

Yes, if its a family member or something along those lines, it does become a little more of a problem for me, as I have love towards them.  In this situation, the same thing goes though...I am more than willing to provide every last shred of love towards them, and get them every last bit of help they could possibly need, but only in the case that they indicate they want my help.

Our thoughts aren't even different in the aspect that we are willing to help people, as I am TOTALLY willing to help people.  Our thoughts are different in that you feel we as a society are better able to determine what somebody wants than that own person is, and I just can't agree on that, because whenever I'm told by large groups of people (especially the government) I want something, it generally winds up they are completely and totally wrong.

I'm not even going to argue this any more with you though, because nothing either of us says will ever change each other's opinions.

I want to also add this to the discussion: 

I would argue that a definition of "harming others" is to cause them loss.  In this case, people who have established relationships with one another, is often based on the exchange that happens from the relating between them.  The individuals get positive from being in the relationship with someone.  If that relationship were to end, due to one person passing on, they harm the other person.  So, in light of this, would need to ask here: What kind of state is a person in, if their passing on doesn't harm anyone else?  Would not such a state be an indictment on society and its values and a failure to provide means enabling someone to establish meaningful relationships with others?  Or, if a society drove someone to an extent the cut off all contact with humanity, wouldn't that also be a sign things went somewhere wrong? 

A good example would be that of a father of 2 children commits suicide, leaving the family on their own.

You would say that he is not harming his family?

Oh, he defiantly is harming them, but you also have to remember that by having a father who has suicidal thoughts, and if that shows in any way whatsoever in real life, that's also harming his family.  This isn't saying he should commit suicide, as any father who commits suicide is a complete douchebag...I'm just saying, there is also harm in other aspects.

I’m (for the most part) a libertarian and believe that people should have the right to do things even if I find them morally or ethically repugnant as long as it doesn’t negatively impact anyone else.

Unfortunately, governments around the world have been expanded and are now full of social institutions which make other people an investor in their lives and also make other people responsible for the consequences of their actions; and this action means that individuals’ negative actions no longer just impact them, they also negatively impact the lives of everyone who pays taxes within the society. Since we paid for your education and welfare of individuals who make poor decisions (resulting in a lost investment and a recurring cost) we have a right to meddle in your life to prevent you from making poor decisions.

You must have personal responsibility for individual’s actions before you can allow people the freedom to choose any actions that they would like.

Well yes.  Afterall, the polticians know they'd probably be elected anyway.  Put it this way.  John Johnson who is somewhat gun control worthy is going to get money from said corporation while Mike Mickleson who is in texas won't... because he probably won't win.  Or if he is given money, it will just be enough to be "credible" by people seeing adds so he doesn't fall into third party type status.

Though you seem to be missing the point.  Replace Bill Gates and say for fun he tries to get a murderer elected for president who got off only due to a technicallity.

Point is really, money isn't going to change your opinion on someone.