Bring back Seppuku!

1) Not always, and not for everyone. 2) It completely eliminates any and all chance for redemption or correcting their mistake. 3) It assumes there is no possibility for forgiveness, whether or not #2 was done. 4) If I can kill someone else for "closure" then someone else can kill me for closure, and I'd rather not give my children, ex-girlfriends, former subordinates, and that guy I cut off in traffic the satisfaction.

Oh, and 5) It's over too quickly.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

The biggest argument against seppuku-style suicides is that it invalidates the concept of someone redeeming themselves, and the fact that if scandals would result in such, then mere prurience would meet the same end as embezzlement.

INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.

It would also lead to less transparency in both private and public affairs: if someone doesn't want to die, they'll cover it up so they aren't expected to kill themselves.

And not many people want to die.

Bring back seppuku?

• 1) My culture(s), at least, never went in for the ritual suicide thing.
• 2) Do you know how hard it would be to change a culture's attitudes on ritual suicide?
• 3) Weeaboo.

Why call it Seppuku? What's wrong with "ritual suicide"?

I know this site attracts a lot of weeaboos, but we don't need to use a word for something just because that's how they say it in grorious Nippon.

Anyway, that short rant really had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Carry on.

And what if they don't want to commit seppuku for their cock ups? Do we force them or something?

You know as hard as it is for most of us to accept politicians and business execs are still people and though you may disagree people do have the right to a certain amount of dignity.

As for an argument on closure? I'd say pandering to the people's desires is not a great guide for action.

Not all cultures regard suicide as an honourable way to die after making a major mistakes anyway.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

Not to mention that a "forced suicide" isn't a suicide. It's murder.

^^

Personally I consider it dishonorable. It's the cowards way out for people too weak of will to admit that they have done wrong and attempt to fix it.

u r jst a silly baka gaijin who dusnt appreciate japanes honur ^_^ ~

edited 21st Jun '11 9:44:56 AM by SoberIrishman

I'm not suggesting it 'cause I have some sort of Jap fetish (I don't).

I'm suggesting it because I find the "corporate executive/politician fucks up=he's got to kill himself" idea quite just and fair and generally awesome.

Y'know... It's a guarantee that they won't get away with ripping you off or oppressing you for the lulz. If they get caught, they'd get pressured into offing themselves. Disgrace, shunning, Leave Behind A Gun... you name it. End of the line, the swindler, the corrupt politician, the financial crook and the busybody would know that and presumably show some restraint.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:53:33 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Because Seppuku is a shorter word than ritual suicide.

Also "Ritual suicide" is an action that can be done for religious reasons, while "Seppuku" just means suicide as a reaction to disgrace.

Kill all math nerds

It may seem fair, but life is not fair.

Plus, Honor Before Reason seems so quaint an idea especially for leaders.

INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.

I consider myself above-average when it comes to tolerance and enjoyment of violence, but this idea is just sickening.

i. hear. a. sound.

How about we compromise, and instead of Seppuku, they get stripped of all their properties, and made to perform menial labor instead?

"Just and fair?" Either we're speaking a different language, or we're using radically different dictionaries.

If we want to be fair, I propose we apply this to everyone who screws up. Because it's not fair that only the politicians and executives are affected. I think I should be able to demand the McDonald's cashier commit seppuku if they screw up my order. After all, if they know they have to die if they mess up, they won't screw up at all.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:56:06 AM by LadyMomus

If you're talking about politicos making decisions that lead to death, it sounds like a good trade-off, though probably not practical.

It'd be Disproportionate Retribution against anyone less than a wannabe warmonger/totalitarian.

Enjoy the Inferno...

How about holding those in authority to a higher standard?

An executive's failure may lead to thousands of people losing their livelihoods or investments. A politician's misguided policy can criminalize people who are not doing anything wrong and put them in jail... Or make everyone poorer, or be generally corrupt and dickish, or be pointless and intrusive.

If one'o'those screws up, they hurt thousands/millions of people. A bottom-feeder screwing up doesn't do much more than annoy you, therefore it's less serious, therefore it doesn't require an exemplarizing death.

edited 21st Jun '11 9:59:15 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But oppression can very much be YMMV. Many people find high tax rates as oppressive, however I see them as necessary. Sometimes referring back to the people isn't the best way to make policy especially when it comes down to matters of life and death. Also have you considered the knock on effect to the family and friends of those politicians and execs? Pretty sure they wouldn't see it as such an awesome idea if someone they cared about was made to take their own life just because of a huge screw up which as fallible humans everyone is prone to make even good people with good intentions. I would hate to live in a society where there was such pressure for people to take their own life.

The simple reason why this is a horrible idea, is plenty of people have come up with bad ideas and later had good ones.

By your logic, Savage, the failure of your idea to gain acceptance here means you should kill yourself. But we don't expect that, we expect you try again.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Even a clerk can cause a screwup that leads to war, you know.

INT is knowing a tomato is a fruit. WIS is knowing it doesn't belong in a fruit salad. CHA is convincing people that it does.

As Hungry Joe said, you will lose a lot of people with useful knowledges and skills if you have people commit suicide after making a major mess.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

So, like a..."shameful display", if you will?

Are we covering corruption under fuck ups? Because whilst it won't work for all the reasons that have been covered, corruption at that level is certainly the worst crime one can commit against society.

If one had good independent bodies to monitor such it's basically the only time I could ever imagine forcing one to fall upon ther sword (lierally as it were) would be acceptable.

"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.

That independent body will only be effective if every personnel it have is immune from making mistakes.

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?