@$thewarangel:
...O.O""" are you serious?? ...i find that hard to believe, but no doubt i trust you'r probably telling the truth.

if my friend exhibited such behaviour? i dunno. i'd still b his friend...coz somewhere deep down, he still has the qualities that made him my friend in the first place. reckon id be a bit freaked out but still...it'd be cruel to ditch him just coz he feels passionately about something.

Gvnkwyr

Fanatics tend to act without being fully conscious of their actions, and this involves dramatic consequences. In most cases the don't know and don't understand what they are doing, just what we once did a couple of time when we were teenagers.

i disagree with you. they know what they are doing. that's kinda why they're doing it anyway >.> ... its just a matter of opinions, that's all. we 'non-fanatics' view them from outside the box. we are the ones who dont understand them.

@~whisprn2dawind: Yes, you are right, maybe I'm being too dramatic. However, you might agree with me in the fact that some actions motivated by zealotry are not precisely well thought, meditated or even planned; most of them are actually impulsive, they know what they are doing but they ignore (or underestimate) the consequences of their actions. The vampire-fan that sharpened her teeth? the religious fanatic that gives all his money to the minister? Those kind of actions are done with a very biased and distorted sense of priority and well being. They know what they are doing, but when you ask them why they are doing it, the answer is not reasonable.

I'd never understand them, that's true, the only thing I can do is being tolerant. If I had a friend in that situation my support would be proportional to his/her stubbornness. Sometimes distance and silence gives a better message that words.

Gvn, you don't know my friends. Many of them are crazy and bratty and if they can't do what they want, then they get depressed. I don't have to like it. I don't have to control them. I don't like it when someone tells me to do/ doesn't let me/ makes me do something. If I don't like it when someone does it to me, I'm no going to do it to someone else. I hate hypocrisy. Sure, I'd tell them that their fashion is absurd, and that it won't look good, but if that is what they really and truly want, then I have no right to stop them. I saw this show in hulu the other day of this crazy man who had an obsession with cutting his left hand off. Eventually, he did. He got rushed to the hospital though, and the director of that hospital became enraged when he heard and made a scandal of attaching the hand back to the man. But the man is happy now. To have changed himself to form his desires, everything that had kept his emotions in the bottom now disappeared, and he laughed and smiled and even made friends. I think the name of the series is called, mental. I have a terrible way of explaining things and letting the emotion pass through, so please,when you have time, go and watch it. Maybe then you'll understand.

I think to stop them and tell them what they are doing is wrong, and order them to do what you think is right is outright arrogant. You can tell them your true feelings on the matter, but to tell them what to do, no. They haven't asked you to stop them, nor to tell them what to do. They want to be happy, it is wrong to stop that. I care about my friend very much; I wouldn't want her to cut off her hands. But if she showed true will and desire of the prospect, it would be an insult to try to stop her. They're only affecting themselves. No one else is hurt by this.

So I went on a limb and said some cold violent things in my previous comment. The point remains, you are overreacting. We are seeing things as outsiders, and we have to remember, they see the world differently from us. To our eyes, the world is one way. To them, it's complete opposite. Just let them be. You don't have to like it, you don't have to hate it. You can tell them your opinion, but if they prove they want this badly enough, let it be. Of course, if they're doing something you consider to be ridiculous, and they haven't set yet, then yes, do give some attempt.

Just remember, it's insulting if they're dead set on the idea.

Hard to say.

Like- I want to say that everybody should just be able to do whatever it is that they want- at whatever extreme that they want- but then that might lead to behaviors that are not so healthy. Like- I read about this murder in Belgium a while ago. At the scene of the crime, there was a note left by somebody saying "I am Kira." That- I KNOW- is going waaay to far. Like- the thing with the girl that's obsessed with Twilight, and she dresses just like the character and all that stuff, I don't think she might hurt anybody emulating the twilight, but unless she grows out of it, will she ever really have her own personality? Maybe I'm wrong.

Espada, you are distorting my point. First of all, Mental is a TV show about a psychiatric clinic. I haven't seen that episode, but the guy obsessed with cutting his hand was a mental patient, not a fanatic person. Society, family, friends or even doctors would never allow an insane person to hurt his/herself, even when that make him/her happy. That's ridiculous. If someone very close to you is depressed and wants to commit suicide, you'd don't simply let him be just because if you stop him that would make him sad; that's nonsense, the guy is badly depressed, is not conscious of his acts, needs professional help and he must be stopped (insult him but save his life, for god's sake!). However, a fanatic person haven't lost his mind (even when some of them seem to). For that reason your fictional example taken from a TV show about a crazy guy is out of context into this discussion.

The only thing I agree with you is nobody has the right to stop fanatic's "weirdness" if that makes them happy. For me is fine if they celebrate fictional birthdays, sharpen their teeth, buy the writer's feces or dress whatever they want. But, as a rational member of society, I'd let them be as long as they don't hurt themselves. If a zealot person hazards his life or well being, he has crossed the line between passion and insanity for me, and I would like to stop him, or at least remind him the risk he is taking. This is my answer to my own question "How much is too much?" For me that point (hurting themselves) is too much, and I respect your opinion if you say that there's no limit.

Espada

I think to stop them and tell them what they are doing is wrong, and order them to do what you think is right is outright arrogant.

Don't call me arrogant, this is the second time you insult me in a forum. Next time quote my words, because I've never said that all fanatics have to be stopped as a fascist manifest. I don't command nobody to do what I think.

I think that I understand your point, and in your last paragraph we have reached an agreement, even when that's not the scope of this thread. I'm only asking people if they consider there's a limit and what they'd do in that situation.

FourthEspada

We are seeing things as outsiders, and we have to remember, they see the world differently from us. To our eyes, the world is one way. To them, it's complete opposite. Just let them be. You don't have to like it, you don't have to hate it. You can tell them your opinion, but if they prove they want this badly enough, let it be. Of course, if they're doing something you consider to be ridiculous, and they haven't set yet, then yes, do give some attempt.

agreed.

As I sway towards partial libertarianism, it's interesting to see that no-one has mentioned the harm principle yet. It's a considerably important principle for a discussion like this, especially if you consider yourself a libertarian. John Mill (american philopher and politician) was the aurthor, and he wrote this:


"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." (1)


I nevertheless agree, if the fanatic was psychotic it would be necessary to intervene, but surely it is only under those circumstances? I wear my helmet on my bike, because it's the law. Maybe it's the $300 fine talking, but I'm gonna do it. In some states in the USA it's still legal to not wear a helmet. It's their lives on the line, especially in motorcycle riding, but we can't force ourselves on them. They're the ones who are gonna get most hurt. Sure they're gonna put a huge strain on the health system with the number of accidents they are going to have, and yes that is in some respect affecting others in terms of health care, but as it stands that is the law.

So are these fanatics' actions detrimental to the pubic? Not likely, unless they go on a killing spree (in which case their insanity would be prominent anyway, warranting action).



(1) Mill, JS 1859, On Liberty, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21-22

Interesting point, ChrisWas. With the basis of freedom now clear, the two extreme points of fanaticism spectrum are totally clear: prevent the psychotic to hurt himself, because this mind is clouded and his choice is not really free (it is affected by mental disease); let the odd fanatic be because she is free and she's not hurting herself. For the people in the mid-zone, however, is not entirely clear yet.

I noticed in your post that, even when the individual is sovereign over his own body and mind, there's a law that force you to use helmet for your own safety. What if you want the freedom to not use it? Will you demand the State? Maybe, that's USA, the land in which freedom lies in the field of subjectivity and manipulativeness. If we continue this debate in the way of how far freedom must go, we'd never finish.

However, you have provided the ultimate answer to my question: How far is too far? As far as the local sense of freedom allows it. However, from an outsider (and even outlaw) point of view, if someone very close to me is hurting his/herself due to zealotry and is not still psychotic, I will disregard his/her freedom and I will stop him/her. Not every single person out there, not a fascist code of conduct: just the person that I appreciate, and precisely because so.

I'll spice this with a new point of view. Since ethics, moral and law are related but not exactly equal, an ethical dilemma is perfect for this situation:

Read more... (click to view)

Suppose that a 19 year old boy have jumped from the 7th floor of his building. You are the medic that have come to help, and when you check the boy's vitals, you notice that he is still alive. You start with the first aids and stabilize him, but he'll need surgery or he will die. The boy starts talking, and he tells you that he wants to die, that it's his will. You can't let him be, doing that will break your Hippocratic oath, in some countries you must do all your best to save his life against his will or you'll be charged of second degree murder. Let's say that law has nothing to do in this situation, what would do you do?

Thanks for your answer, it was very illustrative and I feel very satisfied about my questions when I opened this thread. Everything is relative, even inside a single country, and we must live with it.

I would say saving him currently takes priority. To be honest I wouldn't really be convinced he was committed to the cause of killing himself. Jumping out of a window from the 7th floor of a building? If he was sure of himself he would have OD'ed or taken a gun and put a bullet through his temple. Statistically males are better at suicide, so his poor attempt would make me re-think his motives at least once. Save him, and if he really wants to die he can steal some medication at the hospital and drug himself to death. On the other hand, I believe the hippocratic oath says something like:

"To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority"

So if, for whatever reason, death was the better choice in the matter, and there were no legal ramifications, I may have let him die.




I don't mean to draw the focus away from the question, but this was an interesting comment:

Gvnkwyr

Everything is relative

I don't totally agree with that. Relativism certainly doesn't have the best hand in the argument department. Sure some things are culturally acceptable because that's just how things roll in those places. But everything being relative - truth, morality, rationality, knowledge... I'm not convinced. Rather, I'm convinced of their absoluteness.

Thoughts?

I don't think they should take their obsession so far.
It's normal to fantasize and drool over obsessions, but changing yourself, physically or emotionally/mentally is a bit too much.
It takes one's energy away from other things which are more important, such as work or school.
And for some, its annoying to see someone else so into a certain subject/thing/person; its kind of disturbing in a way.
Anyways, people who are obsessed this much can engross themselves as much as they want, they just shouldn't do it for a long time, or gain a reputation as 'the girl who lives her life in Twilight' because that doesn't show individuality...it just shows that the person wants to copy something that's already out there.
:P

@$ChrisWas:

SPOILER (click to view)

Well, I modified the real life example but in the process I made it less credible. You're right about success of male's suicide, and maybe the seventh floor was not realistic. Not every suicide attempts are well planed, their overall efficiency is, fortunately, pretty bad. It was a girl, she was 16, and she jumped from a 12th floor. I thought you won't believe me that she actually survived, today I can't still explain how she did. I respect your decision, but it maybe would be condemned by medical society, because only in some places, and only in the context of euthanasia, death is the better choice; otherwise, life must be saved at all cost, even against patient's will, because life is the only good thing acceptable in the phrase "To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority". But we are getting out of scope, even when regarding the fanaticism topic there's nothing more to say.

ChrisWas

But everything being relative - truth, morality, rationality, knowledge... I'm not convinced. Rather, I'm convinced of their absoluteness.

For me, everything that varies within persons is subject to relativity. If you open the thread, we might continue debating this topic. Truth? the most subjective of all... even when the absolute truth exists, nobody knows it. Morality? it rules human behavior, which is relative, and despite their efforts to make a universal rules of conduct, it has changed with time, making it relative. Rationality... since is based on agreement can be changed too, but is the strongest; and knowledge is easy: it varies with the context. For example, the best PhD in any science is probably an ignorant in terms of survival, or cooking, where a illiterate person is by far better. An abstract concept of this words can be considered absolute, and that will make interpretation of these concepts relative as well.

Obviously there should be a limit, but it's the person's own personal choice. Just fans are getting pretty hardcore, it's insane. o_o;

I think Gvnkwyr, i have read all the posts and i have to say that this a endless theme, because there are so many point of view, that makes, almost imposible that everybody has a greemente (i say it rgth?).

as a rabid fangirl, i must say that there a limit always, fanatism is scape from the real problems for a lot of people, its makes you wird but no crazy, that don´t make them dangerous for anibody, i think the extreme examples that you put, more than fans, are mental ill people.

Endless indeed, Poala. But the point is not get an agreement (is practically impossible to achieve in every single topic, because everyone has a different opinion regarding something), the idea is to read and discuss several points of view in order to enrich each one's own perspective.

I, personally, don't believe that, so long as they keep themselves to themselves, this kind of fanatic people are any problem. The extremist Twilight fans are giving Twilight fans in general a very bad name, though.

I can't say that the birthday thing is that bad; I, myself, celebrate the birthday of Nagisa Kaworu, but I'm hardly a fanatic.

I apoologi8ze for the lack of substance in this post; I will almost definitely update and expand it in the morning.