Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 16:26:11 GMT
tpfkar That would be an action taken without the consent of the person being killed, though. There's good reason to safeguard a person's rights not to be assaulted without their consent - it helps to create a climate where people are not concerned about being maliciously attacked. Also, the loved ones of the person being killed would be rightly aggrieved if the person was killed without any warrant, whereas if the person died by assisted suicide, they would likely feel aggrieved but would not be justified in believing that they had a right to force that person to live for their sake. And using the logic that you keep fielding, how could they care? And of course facilitating peoples' illnesses in killing them is also a climate to be vigorously avoided. Their loved ones would be rightly aggrieved at anyone giving razor blades to babies or poison to the deranged. There's simply no forcing of the mentally competent to live. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"If their death was painful and not instant, then they would care for whatever the length of time between the assault and loss of consciousness. And the point is that the friends and family would have a legitimate grievance if that happened. Whereas if the person requested assistance to die and received it, then their grievance would only reflect upon their abject lack of empathy and sense of entitlement. There is the de facto punishment of losing one's liberty and being under surveillance. That, and if they've disabled themselves so badly that they can never try again, that's a life sentence of being confined to a chair, in addition to whatever problems were driving them to suicide in the first place. It's not right that we're forcing disabled people to starve themselves to death in order to appease barbaric religious primitivism. And also Tony Nicklinson just happened to have a wife and family who were supportive of his right to die; other disabled individuals may never even get the chance to fight for their right to die and may be force fed by family (perhaps with the full sanction of the law). It would be them who needed to reform their attitudes towards death towards something more enlightened. And people take the risk on ordering Nembutal from abroad because it's the safest and most peaceful method of suicide, used for all, or at least the vast majority of assisted suicides in places where it is legal. The comment about putting you in a cage was about wanting you to have to experience the hopeless suffering that you are condemning others to suffer, because the only way that you can care about suffering is it happens to you. Even if it were your own child, it appears that you would remain callously unmoved and indifferent. You haven't even seen the inside of the (metaphorical) cage in which you wish to keep others trapped. Nobody opted in to the risks of life and nobody should be forced to take those risks in order to finish their life. That quote does not support the allegation. That's about my mindset of not feeling harassed by behaviour which has caused others to block you as an insult troll.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 7, 2017 18:12:23 GMT
tpfkar You keep demonstrating that your "thinker" is quite broken. I'll comment to my heart's content. What I won't do is spew insipid alt-right chants about "safe-space" and "triggering" and then make deranged baby statements about "not given the opportunity to correct" "much less defend", because I'm not a hypocrite, and as a sane person I know that I have every option to reply as I like. People rephrase to highlight the absurdity of stances all the time. It's standard viable debating when it's not your standard of sideways ass-pulls of new meaning. That is an argument against antinatalism, and applies to the odds of everyone at the outset, even those who do end up having a bad time, and certainly not the "usual argument" that "the suffering of the unfortunate is unimportant and only happy people matter". Holy completely change the meaning, Hysterical Hypocrite Bat-toddler. And your poopy diaper fascination and they-can't-care-if-they're-dead psychopathy is a really healthy lens to view the world with. The 'rephrasing' of my comment completely changed the meaning. For example, non-existence can be a "state of affairs" (as per my actual quote), but a non existent society cannot be a "society", and therefore the analogy of "the cleanest house is one that doesn't exist" is not apt. It's all ludicrous, but
"And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society"- and the funny and apt Reductio ad absurdum - "And if society wants the fairest possible society, that would mean no humans and no society"
As if "society" could want anything, and if it could, it would want it's demise, or even the ridiculously overliteral notion of "fairest possible state of affairs". There's a reason you howled like a toddercrit on a separate thread and tried to use that to declare "victory" (and then of course sniffling about that very behavior in this very thread). You're a (n asphyxiant) gas! Yeah, Graham is well known for his mendacious Ada-like tactics! 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 8, 2017 7:23:44 GMT
tpfkar The 'rephrasing' of my comment completely changed the meaning. For example, non-existence can be a "state of affairs" (as per my actual quote), but a non existent society cannot be a "society", and therefore the analogy of "the cleanest house is one that doesn't exist" is not apt. It's all ludicrous, but
"And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society"- and the funny and apt Reductio ad absurdum - "And if society wants the fairest possible society, that would mean no humans and no society"
As if "society" could want anything, and if it could, it would want it's demise, or even the ridiculously overliteral notion of "fairest possible state of affairs". There's a reason you howled like a toddercrit on a separate thread and tried to use that to declare "victory" (and then of course sniffling about that very behavior in this very thread). You're a (n asphyxiant) gas! Yeah, Graham is well known for his mendacious Ada-like tactics! On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Fairness is generally seen as something desirable by the most progressive societies (thinking particularly of Scandinavian nations and northern Europe, which are the most progressive nations). In most circumstances, people would find it unacceptable to take unnecessary risks with catastrophic stakes on someone else's behalf, in order to achieve some dubious 'good' which the person would not even know that they were missing had the risk not been taken. graham's distortion changed the meaning of my quote, and at any rate it is very much tangential to the main substance of my argument, which is the fact of unnecessary risks being taken without the consent of the person whose wellbeing is at stake. I also find it interesting how graham doesn't bluntly refuse to comment on topics about the usual staple topics here (the really easy stuff, such as 'if a painting had to have had a painter, then life must have had a designer', and Erjen's chemtrails and Nibiru nonsense); so apparently those subjects must be beyond his brain power to summarily 'win' the argument in just a few posts, and he's still chugging away at trying to debunk whatever insipid and facile cliches the Christian posters are coming out with.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 8, 2017 7:35:09 GMT
tpfkar It's all ludicrous, but
"And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society"- and the funny and apt Reductio ad absurdum - "And if society wants the fairest possible society, that would mean no humans and no society"
As if "society" could want anything, and if it could, it would want it's demise, or even the ridiculously overliteral notion of "fairest possible state of affairs". There's a reason you howled like a toddercrit on a separate thread and tried to use that to declare "victory" (and then of course sniffling about that very behavior in this very thread). You're a (n asphyxiant) gas! Yeah, Graham is well known for his mendacious Ada-like tactics! On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Fairness is generally seen as something desirable by the most progressive societies (thinking particularly of Scandinavian nations and northern Europe, which are the most progressive nations). In most circumstances, people would find it unacceptable to take unnecessary risks with catastrophic stakes on someone else's behalf, in order to achieve some dubious 'good' which the person would not even know that they were missing had the risk not been taken. graham's distortion changed the meaning of my quote, and at any rate it is very much tangential to the main substance of my argument, which is the fact of unnecessary risks being taken without the consent of the person whose wellbeing is at stake. I also find it interesting how graham doesn't bluntly refuse to comment on topics about the usual staple topics here (the really easy stuff, such as 'if a painting had to have had a painter, then life must have had a designer', and Erjen's chemtrails and Nibiru nonsense); so apparently those subjects must be beyond his brain power to summarily 'win' the argument in just a few posts, and he's still chugging away at trying to debunk whatever insipid and facile cliches the Christian posters are coming out with. What's nonsense about my chemtrails and Nibiru threads, old boy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 7:38:20 GMT
Fairness is generally seen as something desirable by the most progressive societies (thinking particularly of Scandinavian nations and northern Europe, which are the most progressive nations). In most circumstances, people would find it unacceptable to take unnecessary risks with catastrophic stakes on someone else's behalf, in order to achieve some dubious 'good' which the person would not even know that they were missing had the risk not been taken. graham's distortion changed the meaning of my quote, and at any rate it is very much tangential to the main substance of my argument, which is the fact of unnecessary risks being taken without the consent of the person whose wellbeing is at stake. I also find it interesting how graham doesn't bluntly refuse to comment on topics about the usual staple topics here (the really easy stuff, such as 'if a painting had to have had a painter, then life must have had a designer', and Erjen's chemtrails and Nibiru nonsense); so apparently those subjects must be beyond his brain power to summarily 'win' the argument in just a few posts, and he's still chugging away at trying to debunk whatever insipid and facile cliches the Christian posters are coming out with. What's nonsense about my chemtrails and Nibiru threads, old boy? That such things exist? I haven't been paying attention. Thanks for reading, though.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 8, 2017 7:44:20 GMT
What's nonsense about my chemtrails and Nibiru threads, old boy? That such things exist? I haven't been paying attention. Thanks for reading, though. You paid enough attention to drop my name, despite the fact that I never posted anything for the spiritually dead.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 8, 2017 9:13:13 GMT
tpfkar And using the logic that you keep fielding, how could they care? And of course facilitating peoples' illnesses in killing them is also a climate to be vigorously avoided. Their loved ones would be rightly aggrieved at anyone giving razor blades to babies or poison to the deranged. There's simply no forcing of the mentally competent to live. If their death was painful and not instant, then they would care for whatever the length of time between the assault and loss of consciousness. Only if they were incompetent or trying to make a lurid show. That fate is easily avoided otherwise. Those who can't manage have no business being put down by what comes out of their mouths. If only you ever made a legitimate point. (too bad there's no blink (>_<) ) It's like you honestly ! think you can wipe away unnecessarily putting loved ones through hell (and lest we forget instituting a system chewing up countless vulnerable for your totally legitimate death-wish-for-all mood swings) on the back of your narcissism, with a dolled-up adjective. Sums up your whole being. And yet still, all of your adjectives fall away at your dead-can't-care-life-everywhere-is-not-worth-any-suffering-anywhere "rationale". Once you've attained tranquility of the Heavens Gate awakening, the logic is unassailable. Preventing both their own and the future suffering they would cause others is actually doing them a favor. 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 9, 2017 2:59:50 GMT
This is responding to the wrong thing. The above comment concerns one of the reasons why there is an important moral difference between killing someone without their knowledge and euthanasia/assisted suicide at a person's request. In the case of suicide, someone has to come across the dead body in any case. And if it were perfectly easy to die without any risk or discomfort at all, then there'd be no point in assisted suicide even for the terminally ill. If the loved ones would wish to have someone forced to remain alive agains that person's wishes, then they don't deserve to have their grievances paid any attention and should be condemned for their callousness. If the 'vulnerable' people went through the entire process up until death wishing for that service, then in no way can they be said to be victims. Human societies are in serious need of a paradigm change concerning death.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 3:07:07 GMT
tpfkar There's not punishment inflicted on one who fails a suicide. Although it at the very least takes some combination of incompetence and rashness, all they have to do is not continue acting out, and they are free to accomplish the trivially easy task in private. Breaking laws on prohibited substances of course is another mater, that requires sanction. I suppose you'd prefer there be no barriers to keep the deranged from jumping in front of trains as well? There is the de facto punishment of losing one's liberty and being under surveillance. That, and if they've disabled themselves so badly that they can never try again, that's a life sentence of being confined to a chair, in addition to whatever problems were driving them to suicide in the first place. There's no de facto punishment for being hospitalized after a car accident. If they've "disabled themselves so badly that they can never try again" then they where deranged / mentally incompetent to begin with. It's not right that we're forcing people to take poison. We should vaporize them, and anyone displaying any aspect of pain right on the spot. www.worldrtd.net/patient-refusal-nutrition-and-hydration 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 9, 2017 20:17:12 GMT
tpfkar There is the de facto punishment of losing one's liberty and being under surveillance. That, and if they've disabled themselves so badly that they can never try again, that's a life sentence of being confined to a chair, in addition to whatever problems were driving them to suicide in the first place. There's no de facto punishment for being hospitalized after a car accident. If they've "disabled themselves so badly that they can never try again" then they where deranged / mentally incompetent to begin with. It's not right that we're forcing people to take poison. We should vaporize them, and anyone displaying any aspect of pain right on the spot. www.worldrtd.net/patient-refusal-nutrition-and-hydration On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"If you had a DNR and would have died without medical intervention, then you would have a right to sue the hospital that ignored your directive. If you try to kill yourself and are somehow intercepted before completion of the suicide (perhaps you did everything in the most rational way possible, but just got extremely unlucky), then your DNR would be ignored on the presumption of insanity. Without anyone having interviewed you so as to assess your mental state. Almost any method of suicide is fraught with a margin of error, which is indiscriminate between the mentally ill and rational. You have to go to the extreme of claiming or implying that in the history of the entire human race, no rational person has ever failed at suicide in order to support your reactionary primitivism.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 20:21:40 GMT
tpfkar Only if they were incompetent or trying to make a lurid show. That fate is easily avoided otherwise. Those who can't manage have no business being put down by what comes out of their mouths. This is responding to the wrong thing. The above comment concerns one of the reasons why there is an important moral difference between killing someone without their knowledge and euthanasia/assisted suicide at a person's request. In the case of suicide, someone has to come across the dead body in any case. And if it were perfectly easy to die without any risk or discomfort at all, then there'd be no point in assisted suicide even for the terminally ill. It is exactly on point. Things "known" while deranged are very different from held while mentally sound/recovered. Already comprehensively answered in response to post where text first appears.No, the imposing one doesn't need to ensnare those who will be devastated by being directly implicated in a loved one's self-destruction just to feed his ironic self-love. And there is no "entire process" that doesn't include them being able enough to leave care and accomplish their trivially easily concluded once actually resolved task without malice or scene. Human societies aren't in need of paradigm shifts toward self-destruction but toward elevation. 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 9, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
A person's perspective changes based on whether they are mentally ill; but then if you're saying that because someone wants to die that means that they can't consent to what they want, then that is a catch-22. A person with a mental illness is usually suffering, and their reports should be taken seriously. When living with a chronic mental illness for years, it is perfectly rational to want to die, given that this would have the desired outcome of ending the suffering, but without any lasting negative consequences. To say that even a patient who presents this line of reasoning should not be helped to die (or should be forcefully prevented from committing suicide) is mere discrimination. The concerns of the loved ones are no more to be taken seriously than those who would be devastated if someone in their family came out as homosexual, wanted to leave the family religion, or wanted to marry interracially. The liberties of the individual should never be constrained by the benighted illiberalism of the collective. There is no rational argument that a person can regret being dead, and therefore any measure which seeks to prevent the right to assistance in dying can only ever be based in an atavistic religious mindset that should be accorded no place in shaping the discourse or laws in a civilised society.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 22:49:08 GMT
tpfkar There's no de facto punishment for being hospitalized after a car accident. If they've "disabled themselves so badly that they can never try again" then they where deranged / mentally incompetent to begin with. It's not right that we're forcing people to take poison. We should vaporize them, and anyone displaying any aspect of pain right on the spot. www.worldrtd.net/patient-refusal-nutrition-and-hydrationIf you had a DNR and would have died without medical intervention, then you would have a right to sue the hospital that ignored your directive. If you try to kill yourself and are somehow intercepted before completion of the suicide (perhaps you did everything in the most rational way possible, but just got extremely unlucky), then your DNR would be ignored on the presumption of insanity. Without anyone having interviewed you so as to assess your mental state. Not sure a DNR would be ignored in such a case, but there could be grounds based on mental incompetence and or derangement, temporary or otherwise. Humans are frightfully fragile creatures physically. It is trivially easy to ensure death for any mentally competent clear-thinking actually resolved individual. You don't institute incredibly damaging institutional policies on the back of freak possibilities. Nah, not with the mentally competent sound-of-mind not intending to make a scene. And it's your mental and integrous morbid primitivism that leads you to post distortions such as "rational" for some combination of rashness, derangement, narcissism, mental incompetence, and the like. The deranged can be quite rational according to their inputs. The supervillain psychopath is quite rational is his own way. It's not your distaste for the existence of life leading you to wish it all gone that makes you irrational. It's all of the crazy, gorked, sideways lugubrious "arguments" you offer in support of why "life is horrid". 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 10, 2017 1:56:32 GMT
tpfkar If you had a DNR and would have died without medical intervention, then you would have a right to sue the hospital that ignored your directive. If you try to kill yourself and are somehow intercepted before completion of the suicide (perhaps you did everything in the most rational way possible, but just got extremely unlucky), then your DNR would be ignored on the presumption of insanity. Without anyone having interviewed you so as to assess your mental state. Not sure a DNR would be ignored in such a case, but there could be grounds based on mental incompetence and or derangement, temporary or otherwise. Humans are frightfully fragile creatures physically. It is trivially easy to ensure death for any mentally competent clear-thinking actually resolved individual. You don't institute incredibly damaging institutional policies on the back of freak possibilities. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The DNR would be a grey area at best. And oftentimes DNRs are even ignored for people who come in with a heart attack, or as a victim of a car crash. If it were "trivially easy" to die, then people would not spend hundreds of $s on obtaining Nembutal from abroad at the risk of having their homes raided by the police. And a failed suicide attempt is not an indication of insanity. Even if it were, society should still be more humane than to condemn people to disability and severe physical harm because they have a mental illness. "Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?" ---Epicurus That is a rational philosophy no matter who espouses it. Whereas your tyrannical policy basically states that human life has an intrinsic meaning which transcends suffering, and nobody must be allowed to act in defiance of that decree. It's an apostasy law. The arguments that I use is that for some people, life is nothing more than suffering. They didn't consent to the risks, and the risks themselves are indiscriminate. People (and other animals) aren't harmed because they 'deserved' it; and forced exposure to further harm when they've asked for a guaranteed end to the harm is barbaric.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 2:19:09 GMT
tpfkar A person's perspective changes based on whether they are mentally ill; but then if you're saying that because someone wants to die that means that they can't consent to what they want, then that is a catch-22. A person with a mental illness is usually suffering, and their reports should be taken seriously. When living with a chronic mental illness for years, it is perfectly rational to want to die, given that this would have the desired outcome of ending the suffering, but without any lasting negative consequences. To say that even a patient who presents this line of reasoning should not be helped to die (or should be forcefully prevented from committing suicide) is mere discrimination. No, of course, if you could or cared to grok basics. If someone minimally physically capable truly wants to die then they can accomplish it trivially without getting themselves committed for derangement. Suffering should be treated, of course, but they should not be destroyed by a pathological state. Not having the state complicit in carrying the non-terminal vulnerable to their doom is certainly not "discrimination". And catch-22. Like the requirement of consent from the nonexistent. Crazy time talk. Narcissistically inflicting your demise on people who would carry the trauma and guilt of knowing ahead of time but not being able to save you from your derangement (evidenced by your need to intertwine them in something that will leave them horrified as you disappear) is an action in no way similar to love and faith and marriage, unless they wanted to wed a wood chipper. And I know, your death religion psychopathy leads you to justify based on "the dead can't care". But that doesn't fly from those not psycopathically deranged. 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 10, 2017 3:06:57 GMT
tpfkar A person's perspective changes based on whether they are mentally ill; but then if you're saying that because someone wants to die that means that they can't consent to what they want, then that is a catch-22. A person with a mental illness is usually suffering, and their reports should be taken seriously. When living with a chronic mental illness for years, it is perfectly rational to want to die, given that this would have the desired outcome of ending the suffering, but without any lasting negative consequences. To say that even a patient who presents this line of reasoning should not be helped to die (or should be forcefully prevented from committing suicide) is mere discrimination. No, of course, if you could or cared to grok basics. If someone minimally physically capable truly wants to die then they can accomplish it trivially without getting themselves committed for derangement. Suffering should be treated, of course, but they should not be destroyed by a pathological state. Not having the state complicit in carrying the non-terminal vulnerable to their doom is certainly not "discrimination". And catch-22. Like the requirement of consent from the nonexistent. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"It very much is discrimination, because you're saying that their desires are automatically invalid, based on a medical diagnosis (and you're even extending it to people without such a diagnosis, such as myself). Not all people with mental illness are experiencing a break from reality. Depression is not a form of psychosis wherein the patient has lost touch with reality. Someone's medical condition ought not to lead to prejudice against that individual if they are expressing a coherent and rational argument, such as "I want to die so that I can escape from present and future suffering, knowing that it is unlikely that when I'm dead I will be able to feel deprivation of the joys". So you're addressing the person's reasoning and not discriminating against the patient without giving them a chance to explain themselves. Of course, as has been demonstrated many times, you do like your ad hominem attacks, so naturally you want people to be disqualified from assistance to die based on an ad hominem prejudice. Sentient existence is unnecessary and fraught with risk. Non-existent people of course cannot consent. Therefore, considering the risks involved, coupled with the fact that non-existent people cannot feel deprived of life, there ought to be the presumption of non-consent. I never stated that I would want to tell people of my intentions. I simply should be permitted to have access to the means to die, and if someone else happens to find out about my plans (whether from myself, or by other means), they should have no legal right of intervention. The taboo around assisted dying is very much the same as the taboo around apostasy, homosexuality, or interracial marriage. In the past, and in the present in certain societies, the collective has the right to prevent homosexuality or interracial marriage because they would cause an outrage. In our own society, we're still at the stage where assisted dying is not allowed because it flies in the face of the narrative of 'human life is special and transcends the pain of suffering' from which so many people (including yourself) still derive comfort.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 7:35:10 GMT
tpfkar No, of course, if you could or cared to grok basics. If someone minimally physically capable truly wants to die then they can accomplish it trivially without getting themselves committed for derangement. Suffering should be treated, of course, but they should not be destroyed by a pathological state. Not having the state complicit in carrying the non-terminal vulnerable to their doom is certainly not "discrimination". And catch-22. Like the requirement of consent from the nonexistent. It very much is discrimination, because you're saying that their desires are automatically invalid, based on a medical diagnosis (and you're even extending it to people without such a diagnosis, such as myself). Not all people with mental illness are experiencing a break from reality. Depression is not a form of psychosis wherein the patient has lost touch with reality. Someone's medical condition ought not to lead to prejudice against that individual if they are expressing a coherent and rational argument, such as "I want to die so that I can escape from present and future suffering, knowing that it is unlikely that when I'm dead I will be able to feel deprivation of the joys". So you're addressing the person's reasoning and not discriminating against the patient without giving them a chance to explain themselves. Of course, as has been demonstrated many times, you do like your ad hominem attacks, so naturally you want people to be disqualified from assistance to die based on an ad hominem prejudice. If they aren't mentally incompetent/rash/deranged/screaming for help/narcissistic psychopaths then they could manage and would if truly decided, the trivially easy task in private, and wouldn't be demanding the state do it and hysterically flouncing about with the most comical of lugubrious exaggerations. If they are any of those, then the state certainly should not be complicit in deep-sixing them. And you drove the tone and started with the insults and have never stopped with them. No sweat, but you piercing madly hypocritical howls are always funny. And ad hominems are "your 'argument' is wrong because you're a nutcase", and not, of course "holy shyte your 'argument' is wildly irrational, morbid, psychopathic, insanely projecting, lugubriously exaggerated. You really are quite the nutcase." "Necessary" was never the measure. It's a blast you can get off whenever you like. It's going to take you off soon enough. Non-existent can't not consent. The vast majority of those who've lived are glad to have had the chance and choice for this easily untethered ride. Yeeesh. "If someone has made certain preparations for a quick and painless death, why should they not be able to go and visit their friends and loved ones to say goodbye and explain that when they go home they are going to administer themselves a medicine which will kill them peacefully and painlessly? What would likely happen in that scenario (unless the individual was blessed to have only friends and family members who were extremely progressively minded and irreligious) is that someone would alert the police, they would raid the person's home, remove the Nembutal and take the person into custody. In what sense, then, does the person have the 'right' to take the Nembutal.""Some people would prefer the chance to say goodbye to someone they love, rather than have their suicide come as a shock."And sure, not wanting the state involved in sending the mentally incompetent and/or deranged to their doom based on their disabilities talking is just like the n-word, I know. 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 10, 2017 8:50:43 GMT
tpfkar It very much is discrimination, because you're saying that their desires are automatically invalid, based on a medical diagnosis (and you're even extending it to people without such a diagnosis, such as myself). Not all people with mental illness are experiencing a break from reality. Depression is not a form of psychosis wherein the patient has lost touch with reality. Someone's medical condition ought not to lead to prejudice against that individual if they are expressing a coherent and rational argument, such as "I want to die so that I can escape from present and future suffering, knowing that it is unlikely that when I'm dead I will be able to feel deprivation of the joys". So you're addressing the person's reasoning and not discriminating against the patient without giving them a chance to explain themselves. Of course, as has been demonstrated many times, you do like your ad hominem attacks, so naturally you want people to be disqualified from assistance to die based on an ad hominem prejudice. If they aren't mentally incompetent/rash/deranged/screaming for help/narcissistic psychopaths then they could manage and would if truly decided, the trivially easy task in private, and wouldn't be demanding the state do it and hysterically flouncing about with the most comical of lugubrious exaggerations. If they are any of those, then the state certainly should not be complicit in deep-sixing them. And you drove the tone and started with the insults and have never stopped with them. No sweat, but you piercing madly hypocritical howls are always funny. And ad hominems are "your 'argument' is wrong because you're a nutcase", and not, of course "holy shyte your 'argument' is wildly irrational, morbid, psychopathic, insanely projecting, lugubriously exaggerated. You really are quite the nutcase."
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"If they are rational and have the normal fear of harming themselves which is the product of billions of years of evolution, then they may rightly question why the responsibility of removing a burden that someone else placed on them (and the state sanctioned) should fall upon them? Why should it be their problem to solve a problem that someone else caused for them? And I don't insult often, and have had conversations with many people without resorting to insults. I even tended to stay away from insults when posting to Ada, just because I have no interest in message board feuds. You interpreted one of my comments as an insult, and you've churlishly never ceased to insult since that time. And you repeat the same pattern with several other posters, to the point where it comes across as incongruous to find a post of yours where you're not insulting somebody. And how about you try showing how your wish to deny the mentally ill the right to die based on your interpretation that they are all uniformly 'deranged', whilst ignoring whether or not their argument in isolation is rational, is not an ad hominem attack which unfairly stigmatises such people. It's a 'blast' for some people which is paid for at a high price through the suffering of the people who were unlucky. And all you can recommend to those people is 'be lucky like me, and you'll enjoy it'. Each child is entered into a lottery, and some of the prize are quite nifty, whilst if you get a really bad ticket, your destiny is to be tortured for your entire existence. Ergo, the 'nifty' prizes don't come free of charge; an innocent third party is entered into indentured servitude to pay off the cost of the prize. One child may be ecstatic about going to DisneyWorld; but that doesn't help the girl with the very rare and incurable genetic skin condition who can't even go for a day out to the seaside because she needs to be at home having special moisturising creams applied all over every couple of hours, and frequently experiences excruciating pain from even so much as brushing gently against the wall. Non-existent cannot consent to a risky, harmful and unnecessary endeavour, and because they cannot consent to something that has the potential to cause tremendous harm (and which is also guaranteed to condemn them to death), non-consent should be presumed in the absence of compelling arguments (which would need to invoke metaphysics) to the contrary. I never stated that I personally would want to go around telling people of my plans; simply that suicide is so far from being a right in any meaningful sense, that the legal authorities would automatically have the right to raid someone's home on the mere suspicion that they were planning to commit suicide. And it's not "just like the n-word", it's infinitely worse. Condemning someone to a lifetime of oppressive suffering is not in the same league as name calling; much as I understand that fake liberals like to pick the low hanging fruit in order to gain credentials, whilst ignoring the greatest injustices.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 9:58:13 GMT
tpfkar You keep demonstrating that your "thinker" is quite broken. I'll comment to my heart's content. What I won't do is spew insipid alt-right chants about "safe-space" and "triggering" and then make deranged baby statements about "not given the opportunity to correct" "much less defend", because I'm not a hypocrite, and as a sane person I know that I have every option to reply as I like. People rephrase to highlight the absurdity of stances all the time. It's standard viable debating when it's not your standard of sideways ass-pulls of new meaning. That is an argument against antinatalism, and applies to the odds of everyone at the outset, even those who do end up having a bad time, and certainly not the "usual argument" that "the suffering of the unfortunate is unimportant and only happy people matter". Holy completely change the meaning, Hysterical Hypocrite Bat-toddler. And your poopy diaper fascination and they-can't-care-if-they're-dead psychopathy is a really healthy lens to view the world with. And if you weren't happy with how I summarised yours and graham's position on antinatalism, at least I gave the right of reply and will defend my particular way of expressing it. How many posts of mine have you just faded away from? How dare you not give me "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" by you, "much less defend myself against the insults"! Your derangement is palpable. 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 10, 2017 11:55:04 GMT
tpfkar And if you weren't happy with how I summarised yours and graham's position on antinatalism, at least I gave the right of reply and will defend my particular way of expressing it. How many posts of mine have you just faded away from? How dare you not give me "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" by you, "much less defend myself against the insults"! Your derangement is palpable. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Plenty, I'm sure. But that's mainly because you always insist on having the last word, and the only way to prevent a particular thread from going on until one of us dies is for me to stop responding. But usually each post is just reiterating the same points in different ways, and if I've ever actually missed something completely (especially if it's something that I've distorted), then I will certainly not shrink from the opportunity to either admit the mistake or defend the point.
|
|