|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 3:17:43 GMT
tpfkar Continued from The triggered triggering of "triggered". The comment was not intended to be a pot shot. Based on the garbled and bizarre phrasing, I honestly drew the impression that English was not your primary language and asked if you could restate your comment in a different way. It obviously upset you so much that you still bring it up from time to time; now even a year and a half after the fact. And of course the actual post that I was addressing has been lost to the digital void. I don't obsessively catalogue everything so that I can repost it later. And I'm not going through your posts to find an example, but numerous others have commented on having found your posts to sometimes be scarcely intelligible. Next time I come across a passage that I am finding it difficult to comprehend, then I will use that as my example. I believe you! I suppose the apparent state of your neurodevelopment makes that possible. And you're a liar; this is the first time I brought it up and strictly in response to your "insult" wails that highlight your unadulterated dishonesty & hypocrisy. Well you certainly are, and of the wild-eyed mantra persuasion. I do have confidence that you'll be able to post an actual definition instead of your "convoluted and baffling" repeat of my words unquoted, but such a definition wouldn't have anything that would be recognizable in your ideas. One can have empathy for the creatures to be and what they can have and will face and understand that by vast margins they will ardently prefer to experience the life, especially since they can opt out at any time they choose. Denying that option is the height of selfish disdain for what would be their overriding wishes, all based on self-inflicted personal misery. And not enlisting the state in assisting the irrational antinatalists in their malignant goal of getting as many people into the ground as is possible is decidedly not your silly-slanted "imposing restrictions on the autonomy of what other people can do with their own lives and bodies". Those who do have actual empathy do not want to see the "collateral" (if only it was, with you) destruction of many who would otherwise recover and want to have lived instead died of their crisis, all in service to the goals of the pathologically morose - who justify their mephitic desires on the back of the patently psycopathic "it doesn't matter if they could have recovered and wanted to live, they wanted to die at that time and anyway the dead can't care" ghoulish doctrinal callousness. Hey! You made it to a definition! Your nappy poop fetish notwithstanding, of course the severely disabled should be assisted as much as possible be made as comfortable as possible, even at the expense of hastening their deaths. If they choose to refuse nutrition then they should be palliated. If they are terminal, and I'm sure there's some crossover between severe disability and terminal, and they could be facilitated. Them needing assistance doesn't by any compos mentis path lead to wiping out all humanity and other sentient species, nor even instituting systems that would irreversibly harm orders of magnitude more than they would purportedly "help". And of course any thinking human has thought of those things. And many have watched even more than one die after stopping nutrition. Perhaps you should do some actual research on the manner of that end while in a controlled environment instead of repeatedly giddying on about various connotations of elimination. You post in a style similar to those emails that used to go around with the heavy caps feces-focused descriptions of gay activities. Keep shrilling up the "outrage", I'm sure you'll get it to the point that you'll finally shock people into wiping out both bungholes and the creatures they are connected to. So many punworthy equivocal groaners in this language.Many have also seen others in situations where they would in no way personally want to continue, but those others were scrambling for any little bit they could eek out. And at least know of many many who have wanted to die at some point but were ultimately grateful that they made it through without perishing at that time. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 9, 2017 3:23:06 GMT
I don't like mic, and I probably never will, but hey, at least he isn't a completely disgusting turd like you are.
How does it feel, cupcakes? How does it feel to look in the mirror and see a turd looking back at you? It must really suck.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 3:28:11 GMT
tpfkar I don't like mic, and I probably never will, but hey, at least he isn't a completely disgusting turd like you are. How does it feel, cupcakes? How does it feel to look in the mirror and see a turd looking back at you? It must really suck. Having you feel like that makes me smile, Nibirutoxicated sodomite closet case. After all, you're the dude that says he got picked on for being gay, had to choose not to be gay, that his neighbors used to play "nonconsensual" gay grabass with him, and you also get your news from a web site made to sound like "hard on" with a logo of a naked man with a gun for a dick.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Oct 9, 2017 3:35:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 3:38:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Oct 9, 2017 19:09:42 GMT
Probably depends on how well the tape holds...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 20:11:25 GMT
tpfkar Continued from The triggered triggering of "triggered". The comment was not intended to be a pot shot. Based on the garbled and bizarre phrasing, I honestly drew the impression that English was not your primary language and asked if you could restate your comment in a different way. It obviously upset you so much that you still bring it up from time to time; now even a year and a half after the fact. And of course the actual post that I was addressing has been lost to the digital void. I don't obsessively catalogue everything so that I can repost it later. And I'm not going through your posts to find an example, but numerous others have commented on having found your posts to sometimes be scarcely intelligible. Next time I come across a passage that I am finding it difficult to comprehend, then I will use that as my example. I believe you! I suppose the apparent state of your neurodevelopment makes that possible. And you're a liar; this is the first time I brought it up and strictly in response to your "insult" wails that highlight your unadulterated dishonesty & hypocrisy. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"No, you definitely brought it up at least once prior on the old board, and perhaps on this one as well. Nobody who was never born feels deprived of the right to enjoy life. I've never come across anyone lamenting on the fact that the non-existent Martians are all missing out on trips to Disneyland, or feeling sorry for a fleck of dust on a shelf for not getting to go on a skiing holiday. The joys which one might experience during a life are solutions to a problem; they aren't goals in their own right which need to be created out of a void. Those with empathy realise that everyone is different and that not wanting to face a lifetime of misery or lack of ability to function as they would wish does not necessarily render an individual 'deranged'. For those who later go on to recover from their prolonged bouts of suicidal ideation; well good for them. They still have the problem and are finding a workable solution to it. This is not sufficient to justify the enslavement of the masses; and those who did go on to die will not worry about whether or not they could have found a way of enjoying life, because they won't have the problem in need of solving. Furthermore, the solution that I put forward would ensure that the vast majority of the people who ended up taking suicide would be ones who would be highly unlikely to find their way out of the pain caused by mental illness. So in this case, you are sacrificing the suffering of the many for the future pleasure of the few (and pleasure that they would never feel deprived of had they been taken at their word). You have a concern that allowing people to die will cause them to be deprived of the joys of life. Firstly, this isn't the case. Secondly, you are actually causing many people to be deprived of those joys; because one must be alive in order to feel deprivation and those who wish for suicide are existing in a state of unremitting deprivation. The severely disabled should be treated with compassion as individuals with their own personality and their own outlook. If they decide that the life ahead of them is unacceptable, then they should have the right to request assistance to bring life to an end as early as possible and should have the right to receive that assistance without the further stress of an ongoing legal battle. Starving to death is not an acceptable or humane substitute for euthanasia. Those who are grateful that they did not die at an earlier time when they had suicidal ideation should expect the law to force others to persist through intolerable suffering 'just in case' they might have gone on living and at some point have become accepting of their condition. Preventing negative experience should be the priority over preventing non-experiential neutrality.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 20:16:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 22:38:00 GMT
You're a liar, or senile. The time you brought it up on IMDb, I stated that I assumed that you were probably on drugs or drunk. Then you called me a liar.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 22:45:56 GMT
tpfkar You're again a liar. I laughed at it when you first posted it, much like your "double negative" incompetent desperation. You're a liar, or senile. The time you brought it up on IMDb, I stated that I assumed that you were probably on drugs or drunk. Then you called me a liar. You're a liar and your sh!t fetish is because of your personal incontinence and diaper chafing. You make up things at will. The time that happened is when you shat it in the first place as you were taking the tone to the gutter with insult dives due to your frustration. 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 22:51:58 GMT
tpfkar You're a liar, or senile. The time you brought it up on IMDb, I stated that I assumed that you were probably on drugs or drunk. Then you called me a liar. You're a liar and your sh!t fetish is because of your personal incontinence and diaper chafing. You make up things at will. The time that happened is when you shat it in the first place as you were taking the tone to the gutter with insult dives due to your frustration. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Separate occasion. The time you brought it up on IMDb was several months after the fact. I was not frustrated when I brought up the incomprehensibility of your posts; I was merely confused and wanted the information presented in a manner that was easier for me to comprehend. And that time, I stated that I had assumed it was that English was not your first language, which was my sincere belief at the time.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 9, 2017 23:04:24 GMT
tpfkar You're a liar and your sh!t fetish is because of your personal incontinence and diaper chafing. You make up things at will. The time that happened is when you shat it in the first place as you were taking the tone to the gutter with insult dives due to your frustration. Separate occasion. The time you brought it up on IMDb was several months after the fact. I was not frustrated when I brought up the incomprehensibility of your posts; I was merely confused and wanted the information presented in a manner that was easier for me to comprehend. And that time, I stated that I had assumed it was that English was not your first language, which was my sincere belief at the time. If by "bring it up" you mean respond to you when you wail about insults and deny that you first went on the tone dive, then I'll "bring it up" along with your religious, atavistic, barbaric, callous, whatever. And if you were "merely confused" and not hilariously campily piqued, you would "merely" have asked for clarification. See also "double negative". 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 0:44:55 GMT
tpfkar Separate occasion. The time you brought it up on IMDb was several months after the fact. I was not frustrated when I brought up the incomprehensibility of your posts; I was merely confused and wanted the information presented in a manner that was easier for me to comprehend. And that time, I stated that I had assumed it was that English was not your first language, which was my sincere belief at the time. If by "bring it up" you mean respond to you when you wail about insults and deny that you first went on the tone dive, then I'll "bring it up" along with your religious, atavistic, barbaric, callous, whatever. And if you were "merely confused" and not hilariously campily piqued, you would "merely" have asked for clarification. See also "double negative". On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I was confused, and my wording was something like "I take it that English is not your first language", and it was not preceded by any insults, just by confusion.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 0:46:50 GMT
tpfkar If by "bring it up" you mean respond to you when you wail about insults and deny that you first went on the tone dive, then I'll "bring it up" along with your religious, atavistic, barbaric, callous, whatever. And if you were "merely confused" and not hilariously campily piqued, you would "merely" have asked for clarification. See also "double negative". I was confused, and my wording was something like "I take it that English is not your first language", and it was not preceded by any insults, just by confusion. Yeah, I hear you sweetness. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 10:06:54 GMT
tpfkar Well you certainly are, and of the wild-eyed mantra persuasion. I do have confidence that you'll be able to post an actual definition instead of your "convoluted and baffling" repeat of my words unquoted, but such a definition wouldn't have anything that would be recognizable in your ideas. One can have empathy for the creatures to be and what they can have and will face and understand that by vast margins they will ardently prefer to experience the life, especially since they can opt out at any time they choose. Denying that option is the height of selfish disdain for what would be their overriding wishes, all based on self-inflicted personal misery. And not enlisting the state in assisting the irrational antinatalists in their malignant goal of getting as many people into the ground as is possible is decidedly not your silly-slanted "imposing restrictions on the autonomy of what other people can do with their own lives and bodies". Those who do have actual empathy do not want to see the "collateral" (if only it was, with you) destruction of many who would otherwise recover and want to have lived instead died of their crisis, all in service to the goals of the pathologically morose - who justify their mephitic desires on the back of the patently psycopathic "it doesn't matter if they could have recovered and wanted to live, they wanted to die at that time and anyway the dead can't care" ghoulish doctrinal callousness. Nobody who was never born feels deprived of the right to enjoy life. I've never come across anyone lamenting on the fact that the non-existent Martians are all missing out on trips to Disneyland, or feeling sorry for a fleck of dust on a shelf for not getting to go on a skiing holiday. The joys which one might experience during a life are solutions to a problem; they aren't goals in their own right which need to be created out of a void. That's probably because that's only an obsession of the demented. It's not a real measure of anything. We do know, however, that the overwhelming majority of those who have ever lived would by vast margins prefer that they were given the easily abandoned opportunity than never having the choice. It is when they, if truly resolved, don't trivially deal with it. Having the choice to exist or not above never having the opportunity =/= "Enslavement of the masses". 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 12:06:46 GMT
tpfkar Nobody who was never born feels deprived of the right to enjoy life. I've never come across anyone lamenting on the fact that the non-existent Martians are all missing out on trips to Disneyland, or feeling sorry for a fleck of dust on a shelf for not getting to go on a skiing holiday. The joys which one might experience during a life are solutions to a problem; they aren't goals in their own right which need to be created out of a void. That's probably because that's only an obsession of the demented. It's not a real measure of anything. We do know, however, that the overwhelming majority of those who have ever lived would by vast margins prefer that they were given the easily abandoned opportunity than never having the choice. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"But your whole point hinges on it being 'bad' if the universe was barren of sentient life, and there's nothing to support it. It would be difficult to support it even with theology, let alone reasoning. The people who could answer the question of whether they'd prefer to have been born or not do not know what it would be like never to have been born, and are biased towards what they have experienced and towards their indoctrination. Moreover, the problem needed to be created in order for them to have profferred that answer. Simply don't create the problem in the first place and none of those people lose out on their gladness to be alive. It's not trivial for the overwhelming majority of suicidal people I've ever been known: thewalrus.ca/suicide-is-not-painless/It Doesn't Get Better The mentally ill deserve the right to die with dignity BY GRAEME BAYLISS Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live. —Dorothy Parker, “Resumé” (1925) If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it? You could jump off a bridge, or leap in front of a subway, or shoot yourself in the head. You could tie a noose round your neck or take an overdose of barbiturates. You could even swim out into the lake, too far to swim back. I’ve considered many of these methods myself and have even attempted to carry some of them out. I came close a few years ago, with an X-Acto knife and too much gin. My left wrist has been the site of several minor skirmishes since then but has seen nothing on that scale; I had to wrap a Tensor bandage around my entire forearm and pretend to friends and family that I’d been in some sort of skateboarding accident. I was diagnosed with depression, various forms of anxiety, and (very mild) obsessive-compulsive disorder at seventeen, and, despite nearly a decade of therapy and a dozen medications, have often thought of offing myself, to the extent that I’ve always simply assumed that, when I eventually went, that’s how I’d go (something that has made the classic job-interview question “Where do you see yourself in five years?” so tough to answer). You may understandably wonder why I’ve been unsuccessful in my pursuit of the void. The fact is, killing yourself is a fantastically tricky thing to do. Setting aside the basic human impulse to survive, there are a great many practical complications that any attempt at suicide presents. Guns can misfire, ropes can snap, drugs can induce vomiting and leave you with little more than a sore stomach and a fucked-up liver. Around 40 percent of subway jumpers survive, mangled into considerably worse shape than before. Just 1 percent of wrist-cutters are successful.Most suicidal people are aware of the risks, aware that whatever attempt they make on their own life is statistically likely to fail and cause them greater pain and humiliation, to compound their sadness and anxiety and loneliness and make life even more wretched and grey. (Once, on my lunch hour, I walked down to a frigid Lake Ontario, there taking off my coat and shoes with the intention of taking a terminal swim. I backed out in part because, had I failed, I would’ve had to return to work and tell my colleagues why I was sopping wet.) There’s also the matter of the body. No one should have to stumble upon the still-swinging rope or the brain matter on the wall, but, inevitably, someone does. Because it’s 2016, and in Canada, the suicidally depressed still don’t have the right to die. They still don’t have the right to end their suffering with dignity; they still don’t have the right to spare the people they love the shock of losing them, of knowing that they died alone in terrible pain. In april, justin trudeau’s government unveiled its new right-to-die legislation. It will give those suffering from painful terminal and degenerative physical illnesses—those for whom “natural death has become reasonably foreseeable”—access to doctor-assisted suicide. It will not give those suffering from painful mental illnesses the same access—this despite a parliamentary committee’s recommendation to the contrary (the bill proposes only that an independent body be established to explore the issue). But that won’t stop thousands of Canadians from killing themselves this year. Suicide will remain one of the most common causes of death in this country (and the second-most common cause among young people), and it will remain as grisly and undignified as it ever was. The arguments against legalizing euthanasia for the clinically depressed are mostly specious. Slippery-slope fallacies (“What’s next? Eugenics?”) have been popular among conservative newspaper columnists in the lead-up to the release of the legislation, while concerned opposition MPs have taken to building straw men, suggesting that the government should help the mentally ill instead of killing them. Their points are fatuous and easily dismissed: countries in which the mentally ill have for years had the right to die—including Belgium and the Netherlands—have not taken to euthanizing undesirables; and, of course, no one is suggesting that doctors stop prescribing therapy and medication and instead advise their patients to take a long drop with a sudden stop. More subtle and more invidious is the idea that the mentally ill—that uniform mass of derangement and dissociation—are, by definition, incapable of deciding rationally to kill themselves. As the Conservative MP Gérard Deltell, who is not a medical professional, said in a recent interview, “At what point does someone suffering from a mental illness offer his or her full and complete consent? It’s impossible.” Certainly, questions of consent are fraught when it comes to psychotic illnesses, but I have never experienced the breaks with reality that typify them. And so Deltell’s monochrome thinking presents me with a Catch-22: I don’t want to live, but the very fact that I don’t want to live means I can’t possibly consent to die.
Obviously, whatever treatments are available—the medications now are numberless, and access to psychotherapy and cognitive behavioural therapy is increasingly open—should be tried before any decision to die is made. And that decision should be made by an adult, in consultation with psychiatric professionals. (Eighteen-year-olds are allowed to purchase cigarettes, so it would be tough for any government to argue that they don’t have the wherewithal to kill themselves by other means.) It needn’t be deemed a capitulation or chalked up to an insufficiently stiff upper lip. “I’m a third of the way there,” I told my best friend the other day over a few pints and a few Hemingway-esque attempts to express the futility of life in suitably masculine terms. It was a dark suggestion that I was merely counting down the years, but one that unwittingly implied I’d be around till at least seventy-eight. Perhaps that will be true. Perhaps, contrary to my own self-imposed and deeply ingrained prospectus, my depression and anxiety and ocd will dissolve blissfully away—or at least become manageable—and I will achieve the average lifespan of a Canadian man. But the government will not, on the basis that a cure might eventually be found, ban als patients from assisted suicide. So why should they stop the chronically depressed because they have “good days and bad days”? Even on the good days, I know the bad days are coming. And so, for those unlucky few who have tried everything and decided that a life mired in oppressive and unremitting sadness is no life at all: rope, razor blades, pills; bridges, subways, skyscrapers; an emissions-happy car and a length of hose. Those are the choices that Trudeau has left us with. Sunny ways, Canada. Sunny ways. 'Enslavement' mainly referred to the lack of the protected legal right to cease existing; but it can also apply to the fact that someone else gets to opt you in to an ultimately meaningless and futile endeavour that is fraught with risk and in which harm is inherent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 12:29:26 GMT
tpfkar Well you certainly are, and of the wild-eyed mantra persuasion. I do have confidence that you'll be able to post an actual definition instead of your "convoluted and baffling" repeat of my words unquoted, but such a definition wouldn't have anything that would be recognizable in your ideas. One can have empathy for the creatures to be and what they can have and will face and understand that by vast margins they will ardently prefer to experience the life, especially since they can opt out at any time they choose. Denying that option is the height of selfish disdain for what would be their overriding wishes, all based on self-inflicted personal misery. And not enlisting the state in assisting the irrational antinatalists in their malignant goal of getting as many people into the ground as is possible is decidedly not your silly-slanted "imposing restrictions on the autonomy of what other people can do with their own lives and bodies". Those who do have actual empathy do not want to see the "collateral" (if only it was, with you) destruction of many who would otherwise recover and want to have lived instead died of their crisis, all in service to the goals of the pathologically morose - who justify their mephitic desires on the back of the patently psycopathic "it doesn't matter if they could have recovered and wanted to live, they wanted to die at that time and anyway the dead can't care" ghoulish doctrinal callousness. Furthermore, the solution that I put forward would ensure that the vast majority of the people who ended up taking suicide would be ones who would be highly unlikely to find their way out of the pain caused by mental illness. So in this case, you are sacrificing the suffering of the many for the future pleasure of the few (and pleasure that they would never feel deprived of had they been taken at their word). You have a concern that allowing people to die will cause them to be deprived of the joys of life. Firstly, this isn't the case. Secondly, you are actually causing many people to be deprived of those joys; because one must be alive in order to feel deprivation and those who wish for suicide are existing in a state of unremitting deprivation. Nah, your "solution", which is only a more ostensibly "palatable" cover for your overtly stated goal of over-the-counter suicide pills at the pharmacy, would ensure that the state was complicit in the destruction of innumerable by feeding their illness. On the back of "the dead can't care", which you say is irrefutable, and is for one with the values of the supervillain psychopath. People are of course allowed to die; the state doing it in a factory process is quite anther thing. And those physically minimally capable who can't carry out the trivially accomplished task are mentally incompetent and as such the state has absolutely no business pushing them to their doom. 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 20:48:47 GMT
tpfkar Furthermore, the solution that I put forward would ensure that the vast majority of the people who ended up taking suicide would be ones who would be highly unlikely to find their way out of the pain caused by mental illness. So in this case, you are sacrificing the suffering of the many for the future pleasure of the few (and pleasure that they would never feel deprived of had they been taken at their word). You have a concern that allowing people to die will cause them to be deprived of the joys of life. Firstly, this isn't the case. Secondly, you are actually causing many people to be deprived of those joys; because one must be alive in order to feel deprivation and those who wish for suicide are existing in a state of unremitting deprivation. Nah, your "solution", which is only a more ostensibly "palatable" cover for your overtly stated goal of over-the-counter suicide pills at the pharmacy, would ensure that the state was complicit in the destruction of innumerable by feeding their illness. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"A mental illness 'feeds' on suffering, not on the state of peaceful non-existence. So you think that it is refutable; that consciousness may continue after death? Has this topic existentially spooked you so much that you've found solace in the bosom of a theistic religion? The state doing it is just a humane way of bringing about an end to the suffering as requested by the sufferer, based on secular and enlightened values.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 21:02:31 GMT
tpfkar A mental illness 'feeds' on suffering, not on the state of peaceful non-existence. So you think that it is refutable; that consciousness may continue after death? Has this topic existentially spooked you so much that you've found solace in the bosom of a theistic religion? The state doing it is just a humane way of bringing about an end to the suffering as requested by the sufferer, based on secular and enlightened values. I know, the psychopathic "dead can't care". But do you think that consciousness continues after death? Because you're the one that always goes to religion when you don't understand something. However, "dead can't care" is not a value of uncrushed humans. Supervillain psychopaths can take it to world-ending proportions, however, as once all are dead, does it matter how they got there? "They're" not suffering and can't care. Not that you care about the infinite repetitions of new life spawning and going through the most barbaric long-term phases over and over again. And psychopath values aren't "secular and enlightened". 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 21:30:57 GMT
tpfkar A mental illness 'feeds' on suffering, not on the state of peaceful non-existence. So you think that it is refutable; that consciousness may continue after death? Has this topic existentially spooked you so much that you've found solace in the bosom of a theistic religion? The state doing it is just a humane way of bringing about an end to the suffering as requested by the sufferer, based on secular and enlightened values. I know, the psychopathic "dead can't care". But do you think that consciousness continues after death? Because you're the one that always goes to religion when you don't understand something. However, "dead can't care" is not a value of uncrushed humans. Supervillain psychopaths can take it to world-ending proportions, however, as once all are dead, does it matter how they got there? "They're" not suffering and can't care. Not that you care about the infinite repetitions of new life spawning and going through the most barbaric long-term phases over and over again. And psychopath values aren't "secular and enlightened". On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Your desire to prevent the mentally ill (and anyone else who wants or needs it, spare the terminally ill) from accessing assisted dying seems to come from the same narrative as what inspires people to faith in God. Namely that human life is special and meaningful, and it is something that transcends the pain of suffering. It seems to come from the same primal fear of death and the meaningless of existence. There is nothing psychopathic about wanting to give people a fully supported right and choice to end their suffering, and advocating for the right to die is not antinatalism. Belgian and Dutch patients seem to draw a great deal of succour from being under the care of a 'psychopathic' system in which, if the suffering gets very extreme, there is a pathway that they can move down which gives them the possibility of ending their suffering. But I suppose you'd say that literally anything was infinitely preferable to having the right to peacefully die, at one's own request. Even being chained up and left to physically rot in an Indonesian asylum.
|
|