Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 21:22:39 GMT
tpfkar Even a lot of people who were raised non religious eventually embrace some kind of theistic religion which gives their life the 'meaning' that they feel that it has been lacking. It's not always a case of people being born into religion (although it usually is). Religion is obviously some kind of salve to put on an existential wound (perhaps being that at some level, people do have some kind of existential dread of the futility of life). Facing mortality is possibly the main one, and people don't only grasp at irrationalities for their own consolation, but also grasp for irrational justifications to curtail the bodily autonomy of other people in order to validate the value of life. Well, some morbidly depressed people field crassly dishonest and/or deranged definitions of "bodily autonomy" among other concepts and fervently wish to bring everyone down to their own state of perpetual misery. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****".Bodily autonomy means the right to do with my body what I please; enlisting the assistance of willing third party participants if deemed necessary. Nothing dishonest or deranged about that definition. And I want people to have the right to escape the trap of perpetual misery; thereby decreasing the overall level of misery in the world. But since people like you can only care about your own suffering, yes I would like to see how you would like the cage in which you advocate to keep others entrapped.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 1, 2017 21:58:21 GMT
tpfkar Well, some morbidly depressed people field crassly dishonest and/or deranged definitions of "bodily autonomy" among other concepts and fervently wish to bring everyone down to their own state of perpetual misery. Bodily autonomy means the right to do with my body what I please; enlisting the assistance of willing third party participants if deemed necessary. Nothing dishonest or deranged about that definition. And I want people to have the right to escape the trap of perpetual misery; thereby decreasing the overall level of misery in the world. But since people like you can only care about your own suffering, yes I would like to see how you would like the cage in which you advocate to keep others entrapped. You can enlist whoever you want to. They, however cannot assist the deranged in harming themselves. They have no such "bodily autonomy" to do what they wish to others regardless of the personal and societal harms. And since people like you are straight-up maniacal psycopaths that among other things think that ending all human life is an answer for their own personal narcissism and cowardice, I'm not too worried what your morbidly irrational-self gushes crazy about it. No cage for the vast vast majority; children accidentally escape the "cage" playing easy games with one of our fragiliies. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 22:35:31 GMT
Bodily autonomy means the right to do with my body what I please; enlisting the assistance of willing third party participants if deemed necessary. Nothing dishonest or deranged about that definition. And I want people to have the right to escape the trap of perpetual misery; thereby decreasing the overall level of misery in the world. But since people like you can only care about your own suffering, yes I would like to see how you would like the cage in which you advocate to keep others entrapped. You can enlist whoever you want to. They, however cannot assist the deranged in harming themselves. They have no such "bodily autonomy" to do what they wish to others regardless of the personal and societal harms. And since people like you are straight-up maniacal psycopaths that among other things think that ending all human life is an answer for their own personal narcissism and cowardice, I'm not too worried what your morbidly irrational-self gushes crazy about it. No cage for the vast vast majority; children accidentally escape the "cage" playing easy games with one of our fragiliies. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"And that restriction exists based on an arbitrary moral code that bears striking parallels to the Judeo-Christian bioethic, as well as the prejudice that anyone who wishes to prematurely terminate their existence (and who doesn't have a terminal illness) is "deranged". If the person requesting the assistance says that they are doing it in order to spare themselves from future harm, then what is the basis to say that death (harm only in the sense of physically stopping biological functions) is a greater harm than a probable lifetime of constant harm? And you have stated that even if someone had absolutely no way of completing suicide themselves, but had several decades of further suffering, you would want to deny them any right to assistance to die because you have 'empathy' (because you've apparently thought through what it would be like to be paralysed for 90 years with no escape, and have decided that there's absolutely no rational reason that such an existence would not be desirable or that this individual would not be worthy of having their choice respected if they felt otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 1, 2017 23:16:00 GMT
tpfkar You can enlist whoever you want to. They, however cannot assist the deranged in harming themselves. They have no such "bodily autonomy" to do what they wish to others regardless of the personal and societal harms. And since people like you are straight-up maniacal psycopaths that among other things think that ending all human life is an answer for their own personal narcissism and cowardice, I'm not too worried what your morbidly irrational-self gushes crazy about it. No cage for the vast vast majority; children accidentally escape the "cage" playing easy games with one of our fragiliies. And that restriction exists based on an arbitrary moral code that bears striking parallels to the Judeo-Christian bioethic, as well as the prejudice that anyone who wishes to prematurely terminate their existence (and who doesn't have a terminal illness) is "deranged". Nah, that's just more of your own derangement. And you reiterating that you have no regard for the quality of your word. I've outlined numerous times how you specifically are deranged. As in believing "actual" choice doesn't exist yet you must choose to work hard to get others to choose to change. And repeatedly fielding nappycrappy dungeon-like conditions in third-world country asylums (seriously, how many times will you need to regale with poop?) as evidence, not for proper care, but for the need to help them kill themselves. You howling like a baby at criticism of your inanities and in the same breath crapping alt-right slogans about "safe spaces" and "triggered". You seriously maintaining that saying someone is bats!t crazy for the batsh!t posts they make is the same as calling them the n-word (which you love to toss out raw, in it's full glory). Your hilariously daft pained paroxysms on "word salad"s, "double-negative"s, and the aforementioned n-words, poopdiapers, etc. Your rocketing between being so fanatical about procreation that you were dedicating sappy '70s pop tunes to it straightaway to the opposite wack of hating it so much that that you want to eliminate it and the human race. And the dripping wails. Dear god, the wails. And of course your laughably inane religious projection. You revere it so much that you think valuation of life and helping people through problems vs. ending their problems by ending them has to have some Christian origin. So many are from temporary and/or treatable crises. And your "probable lifetime of constant harm" is just your ongoing bloodripping Eeyore pitiful crazy. I've said there are extreme edge cases, and those might require some creative thinking, but that in no way sanely leads to your suicide pills at the drugstore nor even the "treating" of the mentally ill by fast-tracking their crisis or illness. And any of competent mind in any body state can refuse nourishment and be assisted with efforts intended to palliate. As said before, many paralyzed make good lives. Hawking seems to have had a blast. What we do is help and palliate as much as is possible. Not go with the unhinged who want to end the world. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 1:04:41 GMT
tpfkar And that restriction exists based on an arbitrary moral code that bears striking parallels to the Judeo-Christian bioethic, as well as the prejudice that anyone who wishes to prematurely terminate their existence (and who doesn't have a terminal illness) is "deranged". Nah, that's just more of your own derangement. And you reiterating that you have no regard for the quality of your word. I've outlined numerous times how you specifically are deranged. As in believing "actual" choice doesn't exist yet you must choose to work hard to get others to choose to change. And repeatedly fielding nappycrappy dungeon-like conditions in third-world country asylums (seriously, how many times will you need to regale with poop?) as evidence, not for proper care, but for the need to help them kill themselves. You howling like a baby at criticism of your inanities and in the same breath crapping alt-right slogans about "safe spaces" and "triggered". You seriously maintaining that saying someone is bats!t crazy for the batsh!t posts they make is the same as calling them the n-word (which you love to toss out raw, in it's full glory). Your hilariously daft pained paroxysms on "word salad"s, "double-negative"s, and the aforementioned n-words, poopdiapers, etc. Your rocketing between being so fanatical about procreation that you were dedicating sappy '70s pop tunes to it straightaway to the opposite wack of hating it so much that that you want to eliminate it and the human race. And the dripping wails. Dear god, the wails. And of course your laughably inane religious projection. You revere it so much that you think valuation of life and helping people through problems vs. ending their problems by ending them has to have some Christian origin. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Well, you never even hinted at what category such a mental illness would fall into. And in calling me 'deranged', you are mocking all people who have the misfortune to be suffering with a mental illness; in much the way that a white person saying "n****r" (no reason why the word would need to be given such power that it cannot be spelled out) would be mocking all black people. Saying that life has to be preserved at any cost derives from the humanist tradition within Christianity. Not all historical cultures have had such a problem with the right to die; for example in ancient Greece, people had the right to die. The prohibition against suicide was introduced by the Catholic Church in order to clamp down on suicide cults. It's also mainly religious lobbies, and disabled 'rights' groups (often linked to religious groups) which vehemently oppose the right to die. If you're going to deny people the right to decide what happens to their life, but without being able to tell them what the negative effects (FOR THEM, not for society) of being dead will be, then you can only resort to some kind of metaphysical mysticism about the sanctity of life. According people the right to die does not devalue life, but to refuse this right is to devalue the personal experiences of a segment of the population. And my suggestion has provisions to filter out those who are undergoing temporary crises; whereas your callous suggestion does absolutely nothing for those who are suffering in the long term. Just 'try another treatment and maybe the 1159th course of medication you try will be the one that finally works, and if not maybe the 1160th treatment will be the one you've been waiting through several decades of torture for'. What 'creative thinking', when the very nature of the problem is that they feel very unhappy to be unable to move out of their wheelchair and feed themselves or go to the toilet? Oh right, they'll all turn out to be genius physicists, and will feel contented and fulfilled by their contributions to scientific research. Fun fact; all fully paralysed people have an IQ of over 160 and are leaders in scientific fields. And they all have exactly the same personality and outlook on life, so it's unthinkable that any of them might find a life of paralysis to be unsatisfying. What would you say to your own child if this happened to them? Given that, at present, it is mere providence which separates one of your children from the fate of someone who has been severely injured in a car crash? Don't worry, you'll just turn out to be the next Stephen Hawking, and if not, we'll find some 'creative solution' to make sure that you enjoy spending the next 70 years being able to so much as scratch your nose or use a toilet. And if not, you can always starve yourself to death (if you can win the years long court case to allow you to refuse to be force fed).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 1:48:59 GMT
tpfkar Nah, that's just more of your own derangement. And you reiterating that you have no regard for the quality of your word. I've outlined numerous times how you specifically are deranged. As in believing "actual" choice doesn't exist yet you must choose to work hard to get others to choose to change. And repeatedly fielding nappycrappy dungeon-like conditions in third-world country asylums (seriously, how many times will you need to regale with poop?) as evidence, not for proper care, but for the need to help them kill themselves. You howling like a baby at criticism of your inanities and in the same breath crapping alt-right slogans about "safe spaces" and "triggered". You seriously maintaining that saying someone is bats!t crazy for the batsh!t posts they make is the same as calling them the n-word (which you love to toss out raw, in it's full glory). Your hilariously daft pained paroxysms on "word salad"s, "double-negative"s, and the aforementioned n-words, poopdiapers, etc. Your rocketing between being so fanatical about procreation that you were dedicating sappy '70s pop tunes to it straightaway to the opposite wack of hating it so much that that you want to eliminate it and the human race. And the dripping wails. Dear god, the wails. And of course your laughably inane religious projection. You revere it so much that you think valuation of life and helping people through problems vs. ending their problems by ending them has to have some Christian origin. Well, you never even hinted at what category such a mental illness would fall into. And in calling me 'deranged', you are mocking all people who have the misfortune to be suffering with a mental illness; in much the way that a white person saying "n****r" (no reason why the word would need to be given such power that it cannot be spelled out) would be mocking all black people. The category of batsh!t crazy, supported by all of the wild hypocritical irrationalities and angst-filled supervillain psycopathies detailed, some in the most recent post. I'm happy to note people who act as if they are insane on internet boards; the fact that you try to equate it with racist epithets that have no logical much less valid use just highlights both your crazy and your contempt for what you're wont to call the "fuzzy brown people". What Internet board posts or any behavior at all do you contemplate might warrant calling someone the word? There was no legitimate reason for the it to have been fielded in the conversation at all, much less be giddily employed by you to try to claw some cover for the freakish content of your posts. Them and you, as it's not with me. Not only do you have a right to die, it's practically impossible to stop you as long as you're not visibly deranged or acting out in a scene. No matter how hard you try you can't convert facilitating others killing themselves to choosing suicide for yourself. So, of course, another paragraph of hysterical bullsh!t. You've believed the religious crap; you've also been a rabid pro-procreation nut. In your latest swing you're just looking for another kind of eternity. Everything in crazy crazy extremes. You're born to Believe. You of course lie freely. Not only did you say you wanted it available in drugstores, but in answer to the fact that many more would end up perishing that otherwise would have recovered you protested that who are we to override what they want at the time and once they were in your preferred state they couldn't care anyway. And I know, life is nothing but pain. So many decades of torture left for you to moan through. They can refuse nutrition with palliation. But what you're describing is an effectively terminal state, and could likely be presented as that. Fun fact. The rational don't use the most extreme to ignore grave effects on the the bulk of the population. I've been there when loved ones died after desisting nutrition. What sucks is getting to that point, not the final process. Taking a whole bunch of people with you just isn't and never will be supported by you coming up with the most extreme, irrational, and slanted examples framed in the most shrilly exaggerated way you can weepily gnash out. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 2:54:00 GMT
Well, you never even hinted at what category such a mental illness would fall into. And in calling me 'deranged', you are mocking all people who have the misfortune to be suffering with a mental illness; in much the way that a white person saying "n****r" (no reason why the word would need to be given such power that it cannot be spelled out) would be mocking all black people. The category of batsh!t crazy, supported by all of the wild hypocritical irrationalities and angst-filled supervillain psycopathies detailed, some in the most recent post. I'm happy to note people who act as if they are insane on internet boards; the fact that you try to equate it with racist epithets that have no logical much less valid use just highlights both your crazy and your contempt for what you're wont to call the "fuzzy brown people". What Internet board posts or any behavior at all do you contemplate might warrant calling someone the word? There was no legitimate reason for the it to have been fielded in the conversation at all, much less be giddily employed by you to try to claw some cover for the freakish content of your posts. They can refuse nutrition with palliation. But what you're describing is an effectively terminal state, and could likely be presented as that. Fun fact. The rational don't use the most extreme to ignore grave effects on the the bulk of the population. I've been there when loved ones died after desisting nutrition. What sucks is getting to that point, not the final process. Taking a whole bunch of people with you just isn't and never will be supported by you coming up with the most extreme, irrational, and slanted examples framed in the most shrilly exaggerated way you can weepily gnash out. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"What message board posts might warrant stigmatising people with mental illness and using a disparaging epithet which is commonly used to degrade the mentally ill? It's the same situation as with using epithets about black people, just not as fashionable an issue. Of course, I do not believe in giving words that power. I also don't believe in infantalising entire groups of people by indulging them in feeling victimised by name calling. The whole point of the 'fuzzy brown people' rhetoric is to mock people who view racism as being a high priority political issue because they want to be perceived as a virtuous agent of change. And how they would ridicule the appearance of a white person that they don't like, but would never insult the appearance of a black person (i.e. you ridiculing Vegas Devil's picture, but I bet £100 you wouldn't dare insult an ugly black poster if they posted their photograph and were uglier than Vegas Devil). But there's far more important issues than racism. It's more important to tackle the poverty which blights the black community than censuring people who use a particular epithet to insult black people. Making a tangible difference in the lives of people is more important than superficial indulgences such as bleeping out epithets when quoting from a source on the Internet. And I would say the same thing about my own group (homosexuals). Whilst there's no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, it should be treated as a very low priority issue, and as a homosexual myself I do not need people to protect me from being called a faggot. Someone's race or sexuality doesn't mean that they are fragile and need to be held to a lower standard than everyone else. In what sense is something a right if there is absolutely no legal protection for it? Are you someone who believes that 'rights' exist intrinsically in nature? In what sense is suicide a right, if it is in no way legally protected and in many ways legally proscribed? Being able to do something is not the same as having a right to do that thing, if there are measures in place which restrict you from doing that thing. And I was a 'pro procreation nut' because I thought that actual family life was like the utopian visions that were depicted in American movies and sitcoms (the opiate of the people, much like religion); the forms of entertainment that people need to consume in order to distract them from how dissatisfying real life tends to be. I didn't swing immediately to the opposite extreme, I got there gradually through an irresistible process of reasoning. To clarify; I would have no personal problem if suicide drugs were to be made available at the first point of contact. However, what I offered was a reasonable compromise which addressed the objections that you had (i.e. that people would be acting on impulse and might have readily gotten better had they sought psychiatric help). Such a programme would most certainly save the lives of some who would otherwise commit suicide rashly in a fit of pique, but you have ignored that. It would also ensure that the vast majority of those who did go on to receive suicide would be the ones with objectively the bleakest prospects of improvement. But what you really seem to believe is that life is precious and sacred, and that there is no cost of suffering which is too high to justify preserving every human life for as long as is practically viable. So you think that starving to death is a decent way to go, and it would not cause additional pain to the loved ones having to watch the patient slowly waste away, rather than having a firm date when they would be able to say 'goodbye' and actually be with the patient to provide love and support at the time of death? And as far as I know, anywhere where the law is 'terminal illness only', such a case would not be eligible for the right to die, because they aren't actually dying from their condition; much less within 6 months. It doesn't 'suck' to watch a loved one slowly waste away? I remember my grandmother refusing nutrition before she died, and she looked like she was a zombie out of a horror film by the end. I had just come back from several months out of the country, and it was very startling to see what had become of her. Not a nice way to remember her. And the most humane and rational approach would be to start with the assumption that the individual has full rights to their body as long as they aren't encroaching on the rights of others. From that basis, only when there are exceptionally compelling reasons to restrict freedom should we allow this to be curtailed in certain instances. The fact that many people requesting the right to die may have a serious mental illness should not be grounds for a blanket ban on the right to die (you haven't shown me how my desire to die is in any way the product of unsound reasoning, for example), nor should it even exclude the mentally ill unless we can prove categorically that they would be worse off (by THEIR standards, not yours) by having access to that service than without access.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 3:57:05 GMT
tpfkar The category of batsh!t crazy, supported by all of the wild hypocritical irrationalities and angst-filled supervillain psycopathies detailed, some in the most recent post. I'm happy to note people who act as if they are insane on internet boards; the fact that you try to equate it with racist epithets that have no logical much less valid use just highlights both your crazy and your contempt for what you're wont to call the "fuzzy brown people". What Internet board posts or any behavior at all do you contemplate might warrant calling someone the word? There was no legitimate reason for the it to have been fielded in the conversation at all, much less be giddily employed by you to try to claw some cover for the freakish content of your posts. They can refuse nutrition with palliation. But what you're describing is an effectively terminal state, and could likely be presented as that. Fun fact. The rational don't use the most extreme to ignore grave effects on the the bulk of the population. I've been there when loved ones died after desisting nutrition. What sucks is getting to that point, not the final process. Taking a whole bunch of people with you just isn't and never will be supported by you coming up with the most extreme, irrational, and slanted examples framed in the most shrilly exaggerated way you can weepily gnash out. What message board posts might warrant stigmatising people with mental illness and using a disparaging epithet which is commonly used to degrade the mentally ill? It's the same situation as with using epithets about black people, just not as fashionable an issue. Of course, I do not believe in giving words that power. I also don't believe in infantalising entire groups of people by indulging them in feeling victimised by name calling. The whole point of the 'fuzzy brown people' rhetoric is to mock people who view racism as being a high priority political issue because they want to be perceived as a virtuous agent of change. And how they would ridicule the appearance of a white person that they don't like, but would never insult the appearance of a black person (i.e. you ridiculing Vegas Devil's picture, but I bet £100 you wouldn't dare insult an ugly black poster if they posted their photograph and were uglier than Vegas Devil). But there's far more important issues than racism. It's more important to tackle the poverty which blights the black community than censuring people who use a particular epithet to insult black people. Making a tangible difference in the lives of people is more important than superficial indulgences such as bleeping out epithets when quoting from a source on the Internet. Like I've said, another sign of the derangement. The total inability to weigh sanely. The fact that you persist in trying to carry that calling someone crazy/deranged/demented/supervillain psychopathic based on the nutbag content of their posts is the same as calling someone the n-word on the basis of - what? - just highlights one bit of your batsh!tness. And following a theme, you again freely show your fullofsh!tness. I get you live off your "I bet"'s as facts but you'd lose your money in less time than the duration of one of your infrequent pauses in weeping. I ridiculed Vegas' picture after he was calling me fat, basement dwelling, whatever, and others similar. I'd do the same with anyone much less ugly, whatever they were, who was going on about others' appearances. Probably couldn't with you, as the distressed tears of headhacked goths double as potent beauty salves and I just can't call gorgeous ugly. It's scary to know that there are people out there actually too fried to know the difference in returning insults about appearance as opposed to hurling racial epithets under any circumstance. You really are like a right-radio pull-string doll. You'll probably be listing Christians getting killed in Iraq as evidence for not worrying about things happening elsewhere, because only one thing can be criticized at a time. But you do scalded yelp at having your crazy pointed out - just like homicide! The whole thing about the "fuzzy brown" was you yapping alt-right at people objecting to the wholesale tarring of a large group by the actions of some in the group while ignoring the assh!le actors and actions within their own groups, or even their own actions and support. It's like you can't rub two thoughts together. I don't care what you can or can't take, a positively laughable concept in any case given your constant mewling. I personally don't want to live in a place where assh!les can refuse customers or stop people from getting married for no good reason. As far as straight-up name calling, that's not illegal (here), and generally paid for socially if the names were unwarranted. You freely use racial epithets that says something about you and nobody else. If I note that someone writing deranged posts is deranged that says something about me and the wack-job I'm saying it about, if it's backed up cogently. I'll catch the second half of pure crazy later. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 2, 2017 5:43:02 GMT
The category of batsh!t crazy, supported by all of the wild hypocritical irrationalities and angst-filled supervillain psycopathies detailed, some in the most recent post. I'm happy to note people who act as if they are insane on internet boards; the fact that you try to equate it with racist epithets that have no logical much less valid use just highlights both your crazy and your contempt for what you're wont to call the "fuzzy brown people". What Internet board posts or any behavior at all do you contemplate might warrant calling someone the word? There was no legitimate reason for the it to have been fielded in the conversation at all, much less be giddily employed by you to try to claw some cover for the freakish content of your posts. They can refuse nutrition with palliation. But what you're describing is an effectively terminal state, and could likely be presented as that. Fun fact. The rational don't use the most extreme to ignore grave effects on the the bulk of the population. I've been there when loved ones died after desisting nutrition. What sucks is getting to that point, not the final process. Taking a whole bunch of people with you just isn't and never will be supported by you coming up with the most extreme, irrational, and slanted examples framed in the most shrilly exaggerated way you can weepily gnash out. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"What message board posts might warrant stigmatising people with mental illness and using a disparaging epithet which is commonly used to degrade the mentally ill? It's the same situation as with using epithets about black people, just not as fashionable an issue. Of course, I do not believe in giving words that power. I also don't believe in infantalising entire groups of people by indulging them in feeling victimised by name calling. The whole point of the 'fuzzy brown people' rhetoric is to mock people who view racism as being a high priority political issue because they want to be perceived as a virtuous agent of change. And how they would ridicule the appearance of a white person that they don't like, but would never insult the appearance of a black person (i.e. you ridiculing Vegas Devil's picture, but I bet £100 you wouldn't dare insult an ugly black poster if they posted their photograph and were uglier than Vegas Devil). But there's far more important issues than racism. It's more important to tackle the poverty which blights the black community than censuring people who use a particular epithet to insult black people. Making a tangible difference in the lives of people is more important than superficial indulgences such as bleeping out epithets when quoting from a source on the Internet. And I would say the same thing about my own group (homosexuals). Whilst there's no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, it should be treated as a very low priority issue, and as a homosexual myself I do not need people to protect me from being called a faggot. Someone's race or sexuality doesn't mean that they are fragile and need to be held to a lower standard than everyone else. In what sense is something a right if there is absolutely no legal protection for it? Are you someone who believes that 'rights' exist intrinsically in nature? In what sense is suicide a right, if it is in no way legally protected and in many ways legally proscribed? Being able to do something is not the same as having a right to do that thing, if there are measures in place which restrict you from doing that thing. And I was a 'pro procreation nut' because I thought that actual family life was like the utopian visions that were depicted in American movies and sitcoms (the opiate of the people, much like religion); the forms of entertainment that people need to consume in order to distract them from how dissatisfying real life tends to be. I didn't swing immediately to the opposite extreme, I got there gradually through an irresistible process of reasoning. To clarify; I would have no personal problem if suicide drugs were to be made available at the first point of contact. However, what I offered was a reasonable compromise which addressed the objections that you had (i.e. that people would be acting on impulse and might have readily gotten better had they sought psychiatric help). Such a programme would most certainly save the lives of some who would otherwise commit suicide rashly in a fit of pique, but you have ignored that. It would also ensure that the vast majority of those who did go on to receive suicide would be the ones with objectively the bleakest prospects of improvement. But what you really seem to believe is that life is precious and sacred, and that there is no cost of suffering which is too high to justify preserving every human life for as long as is practically viable. So you think that starving to death is a decent way to go, and it would not cause additional pain to the loved ones having to watch the patient slowly waste away, rather than having a firm date when they would be able to say 'goodbye' and actually be with the patient to provide love and support at the time of death? And as far as I know, anywhere where the law is 'terminal illness only', such a case would not be eligible for the right to die, because they aren't actually dying from their condition; much less within 6 months. It doesn't 'suck' to watch a loved one slowly waste away? I remember my grandmother refusing nutrition before she died, and she looked like she was a zombie out of a horror film by the end. I had just come back from several months out of the country, and it was very startling to see what had become of her. Not a nice way to remember her. And the most humane and rational approach would be to start with the assumption that the individual has full rights to their body as long as they aren't encroaching on the rights of others. From that basis, only when there are exceptionally compelling reasons to restrict freedom should we allow this to be curtailed in certain instances. The fact that many people requesting the right to die may have a serious mental illness should not be grounds for a blanket ban on the right to die (you haven't shown me how my desire to die is in any way the product of unsound reasoning, for example), nor should it even exclude the mentally ill unless we can prove categorically that they would be worse off (by THEIR standards, not yours) by having access to that service than without access. Mic, why do you even bother responding to this poster? You have stated your case so clearly and he just comes back with the most over-exaggerated language that I have ever seen, spouting nonsense. For the record, I agree with you. I think it is inhumane to deny someone the right to end their own life, or be assisted in doing so. What we routinely do for our beloved pets is to humanely and painlessly end their suffering. The veterinarian tells us that Fido has only a few weeks left and will be in constant pain, and we sign the paper to euthanize Fido. The pets that I have had euthanized go to sleep peacefully in my arms, and never wake up. It rips my heart out to lose them, but I will not allow them to suffer needlessly. My veterinarian and I have known each other for nearly forty years, and he has Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care for me. He knows I do not want my life extended if there is no chance of a meaningful recovery and nothing is left but pain. He cannot euthanize me, but he can ensure that my life will not be prolonged artificially. I wish he could euthanize me if he deemed it appropriate. He and I have seen too much of long, painful deaths; my husband's, his mother's, and animals whose owners just can't make the decision to let a well-loved pet die painlessly, before days of suffering. I have been through treatment for cancer, and if it recurs and no treatment will hold it at bay, I can and will end my own life if I am physically able to do so. I love life, but death is inevitable. Why cannot each individual make the choice of when and how to die?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 5:54:38 GMT
What message board posts might warrant stigmatising people with mental illness and using a disparaging epithet which is commonly used to degrade the mentally ill? It's the same situation as with using epithets about black people, just not as fashionable an issue. Of course, I do not believe in giving words that power. I also don't believe in infantalising entire groups of people by indulging them in feeling victimised by name calling. The whole point of the 'fuzzy brown people' rhetoric is to mock people who view racism as being a high priority political issue because they want to be perceived as a virtuous agent of change. And how they would ridicule the appearance of a white person that they don't like, but would never insult the appearance of a black person (i.e. you ridiculing Vegas Devil's picture, but I bet £100 you wouldn't dare insult an ugly black poster if they posted their photograph and were uglier than Vegas Devil). But there's far more important issues than racism. It's more important to tackle the poverty which blights the black community than censuring people who use a particular epithet to insult black people. Making a tangible difference in the lives of people is more important than superficial indulgences such as bleeping out epithets when quoting from a source on the Internet. And I would say the same thing about my own group (homosexuals). Whilst there's no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, it should be treated as a very low priority issue, and as a homosexual myself I do not need people to protect me from being called a faggot. Someone's race or sexuality doesn't mean that they are fragile and need to be held to a lower standard than everyone else. In what sense is something a right if there is absolutely no legal protection for it? Are you someone who believes that 'rights' exist intrinsically in nature? In what sense is suicide a right, if it is in no way legally protected and in many ways legally proscribed? Being able to do something is not the same as having a right to do that thing, if there are measures in place which restrict you from doing that thing. And I was a 'pro procreation nut' because I thought that actual family life was like the utopian visions that were depicted in American movies and sitcoms (the opiate of the people, much like religion); the forms of entertainment that people need to consume in order to distract them from how dissatisfying real life tends to be. I didn't swing immediately to the opposite extreme, I got there gradually through an irresistible process of reasoning. To clarify; I would have no personal problem if suicide drugs were to be made available at the first point of contact. However, what I offered was a reasonable compromise which addressed the objections that you had (i.e. that people would be acting on impulse and might have readily gotten better had they sought psychiatric help). Such a programme would most certainly save the lives of some who would otherwise commit suicide rashly in a fit of pique, but you have ignored that. It would also ensure that the vast majority of those who did go on to receive suicide would be the ones with objectively the bleakest prospects of improvement. But what you really seem to believe is that life is precious and sacred, and that there is no cost of suffering which is too high to justify preserving every human life for as long as is practically viable. So you think that starving to death is a decent way to go, and it would not cause additional pain to the loved ones having to watch the patient slowly waste away, rather than having a firm date when they would be able to say 'goodbye' and actually be with the patient to provide love and support at the time of death? And as far as I know, anywhere where the law is 'terminal illness only', such a case would not be eligible for the right to die, because they aren't actually dying from their condition; much less within 6 months. It doesn't 'suck' to watch a loved one slowly waste away? I remember my grandmother refusing nutrition before she died, and she looked like she was a zombie out of a horror film by the end. I had just come back from several months out of the country, and it was very startling to see what had become of her. Not a nice way to remember her. And the most humane and rational approach would be to start with the assumption that the individual has full rights to their body as long as they aren't encroaching on the rights of others. From that basis, only when there are exceptionally compelling reasons to restrict freedom should we allow this to be curtailed in certain instances. The fact that many people requesting the right to die may have a serious mental illness should not be grounds for a blanket ban on the right to die (you haven't shown me how my desire to die is in any way the product of unsound reasoning, for example), nor should it even exclude the mentally ill unless we can prove categorically that they would be worse off (by THEIR standards, not yours) by having access to that service than without access. Mic, why do you even bother responding to this poster? You have stated your case so clearly and he just comes back with the most over-exaggerated language that I have ever seen, spouting nonsense. For the record, I agree with you. I think it is inhumane to deny someone the right to end their own life, or be assisted in doing so. What we routinely do for our beloved pets is to humanely and painlessly end their suffering. The veterinarian tells us that Fido has only a few weeks left and will be in constant pain, and we sign the paper to euthanize Fido. The pets that I have had euthanized go to sleep peacefully in my arms, and never wake up. It rips my heart out to lose them, but I will not allow them to suffer needlessly. My veterinarian and I have known each other for nearly forty years, and he has Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care for me. He knows I do not want my life extended if there is no chance of a meaningful recovery and nothing is left but pain. He cannot euthanize me, but he can ensure that my life will not be prolonged artificially. I wish he could euthanize me if he deemed it appropriate. He and I have seen too much of long, painful deaths; my husband's, his mother's, and animals whose owners just can't make the decision to let a well-loved pet die painlessly, before days of suffering. I have been through treatment for cancer, and if it recurs and no treatment will hold it at bay, I can and will end my own life if I am physically able to do so. I love life, but death is inevitable. Why cannot each individual make the choice of when and how to die? Hi Rachel, thanks for your response and support. I'm glad that you agree with me, as you have always seemed very reasonable. A lot of people who still think that they know what is best for someone else's situation and think that their 'wisdom' should therefore override the individual's right to make decisions for themselves...even if they cannot explain how the person is going to be better off for having their wishes dismissed. Even claimed that his desire to limit people's right to end their suffering is derived from 'empathy'. I think that I respond to cupcakes because I'm bored and at a loose end (although it's getting boring repeating the same things all the time). When I post, it doesn't tend to generate many responses anyway. Also, that poster is attracted to my posts like a moth to a flame. He has done this with several people; most of whom simply put him on ignore, but I make a point of never letting anyone get the better of me or harass me to the point where I avoid them.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 5:59:32 GMT
tpfkar Them and you, as it's not with me. Not only do you have a right to die, it's practically impossible to stop you as long as you're not visibly deranged or acting out in a scene. No matter how hard you try you can't convert facilitating others killing themselves to choosing suicide for yourself. So, of course, another paragraph of hysterical bullsh!t. You've believed the religious crap; you've also been a rabid pro-procreation nut. In your latest swing you're just looking for another kind of eternity. Everything in crazy crazy extremes. You're born to Believe. In what sense is something a right if there is absolutely no legal protection for it? Are you someone who believes that 'rights' exist intrinsically in nature? In what sense is suicide a right, if it is in no way legally protected and in many ways legally proscribed? Being able to do something is not the same as having a right to do that thing, if there are measures in place which restrict you from doing that thing. As pointed out, it's unstoppable unless you are behaving in a deranged fashion. Not being written down doesn't change that unassailable fact. Being able to kill yourself most certainly is the same, as there is no punishment for accomplishing it. Encouraging and facilitating it is another thing altogether, of course. I understand. You have extreme views and can veer radically to their polar distants. Never a sensible, reasonable thought. All Babies! or horrible horrible pain all must die. And reasoning HA! Like having no real choice but you choose to furiously try to get others to choose. Or how about moaning about "not given the opportunity to correct the distortion", and "much less defend myself against the insults" because somebody decided to stop responding to you. Pure cuckoo-land. It's objectively pure bull. As pointed out, the people who are acting rashly in a deep crisis aren't thinking about going through some program, the reality ignored by you. They are thinking of ending the grief/guilt/whatever immediately. What I really think is that the state shouldn't be encouraging the derangements of the mentally ill not capable of accomplishing trivially easy once firmly decided upon tasks. It shouldn't be shuttling those unable to process thoughts coherently to their doom. And the devout belief that life everywhere is not worth any amount of "suffering" anywhere is just you switching chant denominations. They are bedridden and semi-conscious pretty quickly. And if they aren't terminal, then the state has no business making them so. And still, the rational of mind don't use the most extreme to ignore grave effects on the the bulk of the population. And you'll need to work your schedule, or not, for your goodbyes. Wasn't really about you, or at least it shouldn't have been. But with palliation it's not that different from a more direct method. And if she was terminal then it is moot to the subject. I've noted it countless times. Among numerous other things, the actually decided physically capable not being able to accomplish the easily accomplished task is another glaring sign. The fact that you describe having someone do your trivial work for you as a "blanket ban on the right to die" is another. Also, you ciphering from you wanting to die to the whole world should. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 2, 2017 6:17:50 GMT
Mic, why do you even bother responding to this poster? You have stated your case so clearly and he just comes back with the most over-exaggerated language that I have ever seen, spouting nonsense. For the record, I agree with you. I think it is inhumane to deny someone the right to end their own life, or be assisted in doing so. What we routinely do for our beloved pets is to humanely and painlessly end their suffering. The veterinarian tells us that Fido has only a few weeks left and will be in constant pain, and we sign the paper to euthanize Fido. The pets that I have had euthanized go to sleep peacefully in my arms, and never wake up. It rips my heart out to lose them, but I will not allow them to suffer needlessly. My veterinarian and I have known each other for nearly forty years, and he has Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care for me. He knows I do not want my life extended if there is no chance of a meaningful recovery and nothing is left but pain. He cannot euthanize me, but he can ensure that my life will not be prolonged artificially. I wish he could euthanize me if he deemed it appropriate. He and I have seen too much of long, painful deaths; my husband's, his mother's, and animals whose owners just can't make the decision to let a well-loved pet die painlessly, before days of suffering. I have been through treatment for cancer, and if it recurs and no treatment will hold it at bay, I can and will end my own life if I am physically able to do so. I love life, but death is inevitable. Why cannot each individual make the choice of when and how to die? Hi Rachel, thanks for your response and support. I'm glad that you agree with me, as you have always seemed very reasonable. A lot of people who still think that they know what is best for someone else's situation and think that their 'wisdom' should therefore override the individual's right to make decisions for themselves...even if they cannot explain how the person is going to be better off for having their wishes dismissed. Even claimed that his desire to limit people's right to end their suffering is derived from 'empathy'. I think that I respond to cupcakes because I'm bored and at a loose end (although it's getting boring repeating the same things all the time). When I post, it doesn't tend to generate many responses anyway. Also, that poster is attracted to my posts like a moth to a flame. He has done this with several people; most of whom simply put him on ignore, but I make a point of never letting anyone get the better of me or harass me to the point where I avoid them. Well, Mic, you are a better poster than I am; I have a few on block myself. Sometimes I wonder if there are people in this world that just can't carry on an adult conversation and listen to logic and reason. Some seem determined that it is their way or the highway, no one can think or believe differently. Other peoples' positions and opinions about their own lives are not to be respected. I had hoped that a discussion board like this would help people to understand other people better, to live and let live, but I guess humans are just naturally contentious.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 6:18:52 GMT
tpfkar Mic, why do you even bother responding to this poster? You have stated your case so clearly and he just comes back with the most over-exaggerated language that I have ever seen, spouting nonsense. All right, you've been hacking on me since the old board. I've tried to leave you alone even when you post something stupid as you've seemed like a broken old bucket of bitter. Why don't you point out a bit of the nonsense specifically and see how it goes? Sure, Gamma's got the hip displasia, somebody get me the shovel. You wish your veterinarian could euthanize you if he deemed it appropriate. They can. Enlisting others is a more complicated matter that might take a bit of thought. I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 2, 2017 6:27:00 GMT
tpfkar Mic, why do you even bother responding to this poster? You have stated your case so clearly and he just comes back with the most over-exaggerated language that I have ever seen, spouting nonsense. All right, you've been hacking on me since the old board. I've tried to leave you alone even when you post something stupid as you've seemed like a broken old bucket of bitter. Why don't you point out a bit of the nonsense specifically and see how it goes? Sure, Gamma's got the hip displasia, somebody get me the shovel. You wish your veterinarian could euthanize you if he deemed it appropriate. They can. Enlisting others is a more complicated matter that might take a bit of thought. I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.I wasn't talking to you and I never have engaged in any conversation with you previously, ever.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 6:32:01 GMT
tpfkar All right, you've been hacking on me since the old board. I've tried to leave you alone even when you post something stupid as you've seemed like a broken old bucket of bitter. Why don't you point out a bit of the nonsense specifically and see how it goes? Sure, Gamma's got the hip displasia, somebody get me the shovel. You wish your veterinarian could euthanize you if he deemed it appropriate. They can. Enlisting others is a more complicated matter that might take a bit of thought. I wasn't talking to you and I never have engaged in any conversation with you previously, ever. I didn't suggest you were talking to me, and regardless of your memory issues, you have now. You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 2, 2017 6:36:10 GMT
I wasn't talking to you and I never have engaged in any conversation with you previously, ever. I didn't suggest you were talking to me, and regardless of your memory issues, you have now. You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six.For the first - and last - time.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 6:44:48 GMT
tpfkar I didn't suggest you were talking to me, and regardless of your memory issues, you have now. For the first - and last - time. 2 exchanges talking now, 1 old board, and now this one. Hacking on, multiple times on both boards. Both the chat times were inane up-on-high bullsh!t. Of course your bit of unilateral nasty is a-o.k., but then you can't really follow a good bit. If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 14:18:19 GMT
...lately. Im not saying I'm going to kill myself or anything. However, I've had a lot of passive thoughts about "what's the point?" I see life for what it is. We live, we procreate, we die. So the next gen can do it again. Whats my purpose or point? Why bother? What do I have to live for? The near death experiences come in with me being curious about after life. If I knew I'd be okay would I just go there,If you had strong evidence of an afterlife, let's say you had an out of body experience, saw a blue trainer on your roof, then later you go up and find it (same color same place), combined with other experiences, would you do it? What about your son you mentioned? wouldn't you stay around for him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2017 15:40:42 GMT
tpfkar What message board posts might warrant stigmatising people with mental illness and using a disparaging epithet which is commonly used to degrade the mentally ill? It's the same situation as with using epithets about black people, just not as fashionable an issue. Of course, I do not believe in giving words that power. I also don't believe in infantalising entire groups of people by indulging them in feeling victimised by name calling. The whole point of the 'fuzzy brown people' rhetoric is to mock people who view racism as being a high priority political issue because they want to be perceived as a virtuous agent of change. And how they would ridicule the appearance of a white person that they don't like, but would never insult the appearance of a black person (i.e. you ridiculing Vegas Devil's picture, but I bet £100 you wouldn't dare insult an ugly black poster if they posted their photograph and were uglier than Vegas Devil). But there's far more important issues than racism. It's more important to tackle the poverty which blights the black community than censuring people who use a particular epithet to insult black people. Making a tangible difference in the lives of people is more important than superficial indulgences such as bleeping out epithets when quoting from a source on the Internet. Like I've said, another sign of the derangement. The total inability to weigh sanely. The fact that you persist in trying to carry that calling someone crazy/deranged/demented/supervillain psychopathic based on the nutbag content of their posts is the same as calling someone the n-word on the basis of - what? - just highlights one bit of your batsh!tness. And following a theme, you again freely show your fullofsh!tness. I get you live off your "I bet"'s as facts but you'd lose your money in less time than the duration of one of your infrequent pauses in weeping. I ridiculed Vegas' picture after he was calling me fat, basement dwelling, whatever, and others similar. I'd do the same with anyone much less ugly, whatever they were, who was going on about others' appearances. Probably couldn't with you, as the distressed tears of headhacked goths double as potent beauty salves and I just can't call gorgeous ugly. It's scary to know that there are people out there actually too fried to know the difference in returning insults about appearance as opposed to hurling racial epithets under any circumstance. You really are like a right-radio pull-string doll. You'll probably be listing Christians getting killed in Iraq as evidence for not worrying about things happening elsewhere, because only one thing can be criticized at a time. But you do scalded yelp at having your crazy pointed out - just like homicide! The whole thing about the "fuzzy brown" was you yapping alt-right at people objecting to the wholesale tarring of a large group by the actions of some in the group while ignoring the assh!le actors and actions within their own groups, or even their own actions and support. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Deranged is a word that stigmatises mental illness. And I have not cried (not counting tears from eye irritation) in probably 8 years or so. The last time I did cry (for emotional reasons), it was because of the death of a cat I never ignored the evil that was being perpetrated by other groups, I only made the point that an equivalency was always being drawn between Muslims and Christians, even though Muslims are much more religious (on average) and their religion is causing more problems in the world at present. And even when it is an atheist stating that Islam is worse, you call them a Christian apologist. For the record, I have never called a black person "n****r", and on balance, I usually find that I tend to prefer the company of ethnic minority people to other white people (for whatever reason), and I have a strong dating preference towards non-whites. I don't like to see them infantalised by well meaning white people pretending that racial slurs are a real problem. Sticks and stones, and all that... Also, I have not cried (except for reasons of eye irritation) in about 8 years or more, and that was after the death of a cat. Before that, it had also been several years since I'd last cried. I don't want that either; but what is far more alarming to me is that I live in a place where people think that it's their place to contrive laws to deny people the easiest possible access to suicide. That's a position which generally terrifies me, unlike the position of the toothless bigots who just want to carve out their silly quasi-religious ceremony for heterosexuals only. Give me full sovereignty over my body, then worry about the fripperies such as silly antiquated ceremonies. The only thing that makes you even slightly better than those people is that most anti-gay people are also anti-suicide hardliners. People who actually wouldn't even have pause for compassion if their own child was paralysed and the only options were a life sentence of being unable to do anything for themselves, or slowly starving to death. So are you saying that 'rights' are intrinsically woven into the nature of the universe? Where would one go and what instruments would one use in order to observe and verify the existence of a natural right? And if 'unstoppable' is the criteria of what determines a right, then I have the 'right' to mug an old lady in the street, just as long as I make sure that it's very unlikely I'll be caught. Imagine that you fall victim to an online scam, which causes your bank account to be emptied. The police tell you that the crime was so meticulously planned, that they are unable to find any leads to catch the perpetrators. Would you just shrug off the loss of the money as "well, they haven't been caught and couldn't be stopped; therefore they had a right to all of my money and who am I to begrudge them it?" In Britain, you can be detained indefinitely in a psychiatric ward (where by law, all curtain rails must be of the collapsible variety and all potential ligatures are to be confiscated from patients) if you have been committed for a mental illness, and they think that on the balance, you are likely to kill yourself if you are released. There was a court case some time ago where the NHS was sued for allowing a depressed woman out on weekend leave, who went on to kill herself. Suicide is legal only on a technicality. But in every sense, it is treated as a crime. Both the authorities and members of the public can use force against you to prevent you from committing suicide, even to the extent of causing physical injury. You can be locked up without a trial for either a failed suicide attempt or if it appears that you are about to attempt suicide. And of course, nobody is allowed to assist you in this supposedly legal act, because they are liable to be prosecuted for manslaughter otherwise. I cannot explain any more clearly about how causality does not entail free will. When liquid water reacts to heat and becomes steam, it is not exercising 'free will' to change its state; it's changing because it is being exposed to an external variable which is causing it to change state. And if someone lied about something that you had posted, then refused to address the lie, I doubt that you would consider that to be fair game. Especially considering that you continually respond to people who have you on ignore, even when they aren't referencing you in their posts. The solution that I proposed would help to support people through the crisis stage, and help them on the road to recovery and a productive life. The status quo that you support deters people in crisis from seeking any help because they know that they're liable to be imprisoned against their will and deprived of their liberty for a potentially unlimited amount of time. That and if they manage to get out of the psychiatric ward, they're probably going to be constantly regarded with suspicion and even surveillance by the people closest to them with the threat of being imprisoned again at the drop of a hat if someone thinks that they might be about to commit suicide. And you're assuming that all people, spare the terminally ill, are unable to 'process thoughts coherently', which is prejudicial and denies many rational people the right to suicide because of the afflictions of others. I don't think that it was very pleasant for her either. She was so emaciated and wasted away that she couldn't actually even speak by the latter stages. It wasn't a terminal condition; she had dementia and entered the hospital after she had had a fall. Well you're such a hardliner that you wouldn't even make an exception for someone who was facing an immobile 80 years of psychological torture confined to a chair and requiring a carer to do everything for you. That or starve to death (if you can somehow manage to win the right to prevent your relatives from force-feeding you). Even if it was your own child who was paralysed for life and had been crying out for the right to die for several years, you'd apparently not even give pause to the idea that it would be humane and in their best interests to allow them that right.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 2, 2017 15:42:26 GMT
tpfkar Hi Rachel, thanks for your response and support. I'm glad that you agree with me, as you have always seemed very reasonable. A lot of people who still think that they know what is best for someone else's situation and think that their 'wisdom' should therefore override the individual's right to make decisions for themselves...even if they cannot explain how the person is going to be better off for having their wishes dismissed. Even claimed that his desire to limit people's right to end their suffering is derived from 'empathy'. I think that I respond to cupcakes because I'm bored and at a loose end (although it's getting boring repeating the same things all the time). When I post, it doesn't tend to generate many responses anyway. Also, that poster is attracted to my posts like a moth to a flame. He has done this with several people; most of whom simply put him on ignore, but I make a point of never letting anyone get the better of me or harass me to the point where I avoid them. Good lord, you just can't help your derangement. Who replied to whom in this thread? I know, I know. You respond to me, great stuff. I respond to you, harassing! And you're the on who yaps on about "safe spaces". And that deranged narcissism of yours. Have you even a little shame? On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|