Chippys_mittens

The way you phrased that is kind of confusing. I'm fine with religious people, assuming they don't use their religion as an excuse to hate or promote violence. For example, I think many anti religious people think of all Christians as believing in a type of Christianity similar or the same as what the Westboro Baptist church preached. In reality, many Christian denominations are accepting of lgbtq+ people as well as any race or ethnicity. Even the catholic church took a more progressive stance on gay people a few years back.

My numbers were not contradicted. Look at the table on page. 32. If you don't count jails, group homes, "unknown", or cars as public places your total is around 18% taking place in public. I recognize that the rates wouldnt likely be even among modes of suicide. But, you're asking for data thats incredible difficult to specifically find. My original statement is that public suicides are uncommon but not unheard. The data I provided supports that statement. I will absolutely concede that I haven't been able to link specific modality to public though. If you find data that disproves the below please provide it.

Natural area (park, woods, open land)

1,816 =4.4%

Street / highway 1,163 =2.8%

Hotel / motel 946=2.3%

Parking lot / garage / public transport 718= 1.7%

Park / playground / sports area 330 = <1%

Bridge 316 = <1%

Commercial / retail area 316 = <1%

Railroad tracks 256 = <1%

Other location 1,321 =3.2%

I struggle with the idea that being part of a religion means you support the negatives without acknowledging the positives. For example, the catholic church has a horrible track record with child abuse. Sentiments I hear accuse catholics of loving and supporting pedophiles. But the catholic church also funds thousands of hospitals, clinics, food banks, orphanages and schools. They were also one of the few institutions setting up and running programs for needy people historically. Can someone hate aspects of the institution while supporting others and still be considered moral? Surely if you were to poll catholics, almost none would condone acts of child abuse. But, they would all support helping the needy. Is it reasonable to hold all members accountable for the horrible acts of a few? Maybe, maybe not, I really don't know.

That's an excellent point and not something I or the majority of commenter have taken into consideration. I'm really curious to know if any of the major detractors in these comments have more good will to nontheistic religions. Considering the numbers of comments that reference people being stupid for believing in a fake being.

Yeah that's pretty much what I've gathered from this thread and conversations I've had. Both sides see themselves as morally and intellectually superior. I don't see much willing cohesion being possible on the extreme sides of either. Luckily the majority of people seem to fall in the middle.

I appreciate the comment but don't worry about my feelings. I know how divisive a topic this is and I recognize the platform I'm asking on will have a pretty specific slant one way. That's all fine by me and down arrows on the internet won't effect my mental state whatsoever. I know/knew how strongly most feel on this and in many cases justifiably. I was/am curious about how far people think is acceptable. I obsess over understanding how "things" work, usually that starts and stops with physical devices/machines. However, I've been working more and more on trying to understand people and how they work, outside of my personal social circle. The prevailing opinion from this thread as well as in person conversations is pretty simple. Those who have a disdain for the religious view themselves as being morally and intellectually superior to the religious. Its an ironic paradox because the equally far other side of the spectrum seems to have the exact same belief about the non-religious. Although, particularly radical religious people are known to genocide, unlike any proposed thoughts stated here. I know the vast majority of people fall into camps somewhere between those two extremes. Sometimes its just interesting to see where the ends are.

My stance is anyone using any belief system to excuse hate is wrong.

Yeah, second autopsy wasn't released and the statement he made is completely false as of current information available.

Yes there is absolutely tons of horrific cases of lynching and race motivated killings in the USA's history as well as current day. I'm not disputing that. There is also a considerable history of the government and accelerationist groups using tragedies like this suicide to create violent riots and social unrest. Especially considering the current administration. We need to look at current evidence and react accordingly. Giving the fascist any reason to further crack down hurts everyone but the elites. My heart breaks for the victim and the family 100%. I'm not against further investigation either. If foul play is discovered ANYONE involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, until we have any evidence at all that suggests that we need to stay objective.

Claims gaslighting while blatantly spreading a false narrative that the family has even stated is false.

That's your response to me saying the facts you tried to present have been proven untrue? You're the one gaslighting and spreading unproven information because you desperately want it to help the narrative you've created for the world.

https://wonder.cdc.gov/

https://www.cdc.gov/nvdrs/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/ss/pdfs/ss7405a1-H.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/pdfs/ss7305a1-H.pdf

"Hanging/Suffocation Suicides: According to CDC WONDER data, hanging and suffocation accounted for approximately 25–26% of all suicide deaths in recent years.

Public Place Suicides: NVDRS data indicates that about 22–25% of all suicides occur in public places.

Estimation: By applying the public place percentage to the hanging/suffocation suicides, we estimate that approximately 10–15% of hanging/suffocation suicides occur in public places."