Science vs Morality

A part of what makes a person superior is having no depression in their lives. If they are superior to suffering and life’s struggles, then that means they don’t even have to deal with them in the first place. Or that if they do, then they would completely overcome them. Otherwise, if they don’t overcome them, then they will never be superior to their problems.
Therefore, for people who have depression in their lives that they can’t overcome, if they wish to be superior, then they should choose to end their lives because ending your life would completely overcome the problem of depression. Otherwise, they would forever be bound to being inferior human beings by their own depression.
Therefore, if I was chronically depressed right now with no way of it going away, me choosing to end my life would give me the last laugh because I now know that I am superior to my own depression and suffering by choosing to overcome these things through death. I wish to dictate my own life and have no problems in life dictating how I feel (this would obviously include the problem of depression). So me choosing to die would give me this power and make me superior.
As I stated before, I realize that this is the one and only life. Therefore, since this is the one and only life, that is why I wish for it to be a perfect fantasy world (just in terms of my pleasure). Therefore, if it can’t be that way, then I will gladly end my life. However, if I were to have problems in my life that don’t hinder my pleasure, then that would be fine. But if I were to have depression which does take away my pleasure, that’s when I would decide to end my life providing that the depression never goes away completely. But in the meantime if I did have the depression, I would wait for it to go away completely first. If it doesn’t, that’s when I would end my life.

It's a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure. Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.
A purely subjective analysis. No scientist would touch it. I agree 100%.
A part of what makes a person superior is having no depression in their lives. If they are superior to suffering and life's struggles, then that means they don't even have to deal with them in the first place. Or that if they do, then they would completely overcome them. Otherwise, if they don't overcome them, then they will never be superior to their problems. Therefore, for people who have depression in their lives that they can't overcome, if they wish to be superior, then they should choose to end their lives because ending your life would completely overcome the problem of depression. Otherwise, they would forever be bound to being inferior human beings by their own depression. Therefore, if I was chronically depressed right now with no way of it going away, me choosing to end my life would give me the last laugh because I now know that I am superior to my own depression and suffering by choosing to overcome these things through death. I wish to dictate my own life and have no problems in life dictating how I feel (this would obviously include the problem of depression). So me choosing to die would give me this power and make me superior. As I stated before, I realize that this is the one and only life. Therefore, since this is the one and only life, that is why I wish for it to be a perfect fantasy world (just in terms of my pleasure). Therefore, if it can't be that way, then I will gladly end my life. However, if I were to have problems in my life that don't hinder my pleasure, then that would be fine. But if I were to have depression which does take away my pleasure, that's when I would decide to end my life providing that the depression never goes away completely. But in the meantime if I did have the depression, I would wait for it to go away completely first. If it doesn't, that's when I would end my life.
Given your skills with logic, I recommend consulting friends, family or professionals before making any major decisions.

Here is scientific proof that pleasure is the greatest thing a human being can have. In this video, from 4:20-5:01 you hear the speech from Robert Sapolsky that proves this. He says that depression is the worst thing and backs it up. Therefore, since depression is the worst thing, that obviously means pleasure is the best thing above any other part of you (such as intelligence or anything else) and that losing anything else in life would hardly compare.
Here is the video:

Saposlky says “the inability to feel pleasure” is worse than the diseases he mentioned. That is not scientific proof of your original post. Do you even understand the scientific method? (That is a rhetorical question.)

I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find a YouTube that “proves” just about anything. It’s a method waiting for a name. Maybe it should be listed on a page of logical fallacies. YouTubellogism or Tube Quo Que. Something broader would be better, to include people who read one book every two years and claim that book as “proof” of whatever lifestyle choice they are making.

I think it’s funny, M-L, that you insist on the phrase, “scientific proof”. That’s something well educated, real scientists almost always avoid using. Essentially all well documented research has within the conclusions a possibility, albeit tiny, of being proved incorrect or at least modified by further research. The fact that you speak in terms of “scientific proof” indicates that you are not a scientist and know essentially nothing about science or the scientific method. Go back to high school to get the basics of science, and follow through with a science major in a non-religious university. Then, see how your present ideas stack up.
Occam

Please up vote]