|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 21:47:16 GMT
tpfkar 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". Your desire to prevent the mentally ill (and anyone else who wants or needs it, spare tthe 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. Only by you who are imbibed in religion. Even to the point of seeing it everywhere, and dedicating sappy 70s songs to procreation. Some people worship so fervently that they can't let go even once they swing to a mirror-image religion. Just really hate the daddy they once loved. Minimally physically capable people can easily end their lives once they've actually decided, if they aren't mentally incompetent, be it though derangement, temporary or other, emotional rashness, gross narcissism, etc. And of course your pavement-eating on using third-word asylum abuse, not as reason to provide actual proper care, but to have these poor souls off themselves is always welcome. Once they and everybody else're gone, the blessed state has been reached. 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 22:07:16 GMT
tpfkar 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. Only by you who are imbibed in religion. Even to the point of seeing it everywhere, and dedicating sappy 70s songs to procreation. Some people worship so fervently that they can't let go even once the swing to a mirror-image religion. Just really hate the daddy they once loved. Minimally physically competent people can easily end their lives once they've actually decided, if they aren't mentally incompetent, be it though derangement, temporary or other, emotional rashness, gross narcissism, etc. And of course your pavement-eating on using third-word asylum abuse, not as reason to provide actual proper care, but to have these poor souls off themselves is always welcome. Once they and everybody else're gone, the blessed state has been reached. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I've never belonged to any religion, although I admit that I believed in the religious concept of the virtue of procreation (I never opposed the right to abortion or the right to die, however). Your argument is that only psychopaths would allow the mentally ill the choice to die, so that would presume that the worst standard of mental health care was that to be found in the nations which allow assisted suicide for the mentally ill. So I'm asking you whether you would prefer to be a patient in the Indonesian asylum where you'd be chained to your bed and malnourished in a spartan cell, or in the Belgian system where you'd receive treatments which would help you to get better, and if that didn't work you would have the option of requesting assistance to die from the state. If those were the only 2 possible models of mental health care available in the world, which would you prefer to see instituted universally?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 22:15:50 GMT
tpfkar Only by you who are imbibed in religion. Even to the point of seeing it everywhere, and dedicating sappy 70s songs to procreation. Some people worship so fervently that they can't let go even once the swing to a mirror-image religion. Just really hate the daddy they once loved. Minimally physically competent people can easily end their lives once they've actually decided, if they aren't mentally incompetent, be it though derangement, temporary or other, emotional rashness, gross narcissism, etc. And of course your pavement-eating on using third-word asylum abuse, not as reason to provide actual proper care, but to have these poor souls off themselves is always welcome. Once they and everybody else're gone, the blessed state has been reached. I've never belonged to any religion, although I admit that I believed in the religious concept of the virtue of procreation (I never opposed the right to abortion or the right to die, however). Your argument is that only psychopaths would allow the mentally ill the choice to die, so that would presume that the worst standard of mental health care was that to be found in the nations which allow assisted suicide for the mentally ill. So I'm asking you whether you would prefer to be a patient in the Indonesian asylum where you'd be chained to your bed and malnourished in a spartan cell, or in the Belgian system where you'd receive treatments which would help you to get better, and if that didn't work you would have the option of requesting assistance to die from the state. If those were the only 2 possible models of mental health care available in the world, which would you prefer to see instituted universally? You were born into it, even said you still prefer the aesthetics. And you see it everywhere and live it with your wild endpoint zealotries. And "the right to die" is not at issue. And no, the psychopaths use "the dead can't care" as justification of any action, and fervently hope for all life to be wiped out. And would you rather eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? I just kind of like looking in at asylum-needfuls on the internet. 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 22:33:44 GMT
tpfkar I've never belonged to any religion, although I admit that I believed in the religious concept of the virtue of procreation (I never opposed the right to abortion or the right to die, however). Your argument is that only psychopaths would allow the mentally ill the choice to die, so that would presume that the worst standard of mental health care was that to be found in the nations which allow assisted suicide for the mentally ill. So I'm asking you whether you would prefer to be a patient in the Indonesian asylum where you'd be chained to your bed and malnourished in a spartan cell, or in the Belgian system where you'd receive treatments which would help you to get better, and if that didn't work you would have the option of requesting assistance to die from the state. If those were the only 2 possible models of mental health care available in the world, which would you prefer to see instituted universally? You were born into it, even said you still prefer the aesthetics. And you see it everywhere and live it with your wild endpoint zealotries. And "the right to die" is not at issue. And no, the psychopaths use "the dead can't care" as justification of any action, and fervently hope for all life to be wiped out. And would you rather eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? I just kind of like looking in at asylum-needfuls on the internet. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I wasn't 'born into' Christianity. I'm a third generation atheist. Only my father's parents were Christians, and I had considerably less contact with them than with my grandparents on my mother's side, who had a disdainful attitude towards religion. I see Christianity everywhere, because it has had a profound influence on the history of the society that I inhabit, and also the ones that are emulated by my society. I'm good at analysing people's motives and fears, and I can see that your aversion to the right to die (and staunch support of the thoroughly discredited concept of free will) comes from the same source which inspires Christian faith. That is, the desire to see human life as being meaningful and transcendent. To think that we're superior to the rest of the animal kingdom not just in our intelligence, but in the intrinsic value of our nature. Christians would call that being created in the image of God. You perhaps don't have a name for it, but it's obviously very emotionally important to you. Psychopaths do not have concern for suffering. They don't care who suffers, or generally whether the person who they cause to suffer will live or die. To put my hypothetical a different way; which would you say was a greater cause for moral alarm - the way that psychiatric patients are treated in Indonesia, or the way they are treated in Belgium? Which system is more barbaric and cruel?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 10, 2017 22:50:00 GMT
tpfkar You were born into it, even said you still prefer the aesthetics. And you see it everywhere and live it with your wild endpoint zealotries. And "the right to die" is not at issue. And no, the psychopaths use "the dead can't care" as justification of any action, and fervently hope for all life to be wiped out. And would you rather eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? I just kind of like looking in at asylum-needfuls on the internet. I wasn't 'born into' Christianity. I'm a third generation atheist. Only my father's parents were Christians, and I had considerably less contact with them than with my grandparents on my mother's side, who had a disdainful attitude towards religion. I see Christianity everywhere, because it has had a profound influence on the history of the society that I inhabit, and also the ones that are emulated by my society. I'm good at analysing people's motives and fears, and I can see that your aversion to the right to die (and staunch support of the thoroughly discredited concept of free will) comes from the same source which inspires Christian faith. That is, the desire to see human life as being meaningful and transcendent. To think that we're superior to the rest of the animal kingdom not just in our intelligence, but in the intrinsic value of our nature. Christians would call that being created in the image of God. You perhaps don't have a name for it, but it's obviously very emotionally important to you. Psychopaths do not have concern for suffering. They don't care who suffers, or generally whether the person who they cause to suffer will live or die. To put my hypothetical a different way; which would you say was a greater cause for moral alarm - the way that psychiatric patients are treated in Indonesia, or the way they are treated in Belgium? Which system is more barbaric and cruel? Shoot, religion seeps out of your every post, even without the gems of odes to babymaking and the like. "I'm good at analysing people's motives and fears" HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAhahahahaahah.... Good one! And like anything obvious to you has any chance better than random of intersecting with reality. And you still revere your faiths so much that you believe anything good had to have come from it. You should just chill out and use it up before it's all gone instead of self-inflicting all that moist hand-wringing and worship of pain, both the real and manufactured, that you do. And psychopaths can have plenty of concern for suffering. Highly, freakily misdirected + incredibly narcissistic, of course. So much so that they can fervently hope that everybody gets wiped out. And your latest formulation is no less deranged. Which would you rather do, eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? 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 16, 2017 4:36:45 GMT
tpfkar I wasn't 'born into' Christianity. I'm a third generation atheist. Only my father's parents were Christians, and I had considerably less contact with them than with my grandparents on my mother's side, who had a disdainful attitude towards religion. I see Christianity everywhere, because it has had a profound influence on the history of the society that I inhabit, and also the ones that are emulated by my society. I'm good at analysing people's motives and fears, and I can see that your aversion to the right to die (and staunch support of the thoroughly discredited concept of free will) comes from the same source which inspires Christian faith. That is, the desire to see human life as being meaningful and transcendent. To think that we're superior to the rest of the animal kingdom not just in our intelligence, but in the intrinsic value of our nature. Christians would call that being created in the image of God. You perhaps don't have a name for it, but it's obviously very emotionally important to you. Psychopaths do not have concern for suffering. They don't care who suffers, or generally whether the person who they cause to suffer will live or die. To put my hypothetical a different way; which would you say was a greater cause for moral alarm - the way that psychiatric patients are treated in Indonesia, or the way they are treated in Belgium? Which system is more barbaric and cruel? Shoot, religion seeps out of your every post, even without the gems of odes to babymaking and the like. "I'm good at analysing people's motives and fears" HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAhahahahaahah.... Good one! And like anything obvious to you has any chance better than random of intersecting with reality. And you still revere your faiths so much that you believe anything good had to have come from it. You should just chill out and use it up before it's all gone instead of self-inflicting all that moist hand-wringing and worship of pain, both the real and manufactured, that you do. And psychopaths can have plenty of concern for suffering. Highly, freakily misdirected + incredibly narcissistic, of course. So much so that they can fervently hope that everybody gets wiped out. And your latest formulation is no less deranged. Which would you rather do, eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Without ascribing some kind of transcendental meaning to life, you have no basis to deride 'the dead don't care' when the person who has died has gone to their death desiring that end and relieved at the end to their suffering. There is no way of reaching the conclusions that you have reached without some kind of intangible superstition. Same thing with free will, of course. And psychopaths have concern for their own suffering, and nobody else's. I am sickened by the suffering that you would continue to impose on others on the basis that if it isn't happening to you, it doesn't matter, and the sanctity of life trumps all other considerations. I'll answer your hypothetical once you answer mine. I asked first. Are you more viscerally appalled by the stories coming out of Belgium and The Netherlands, or by the pictures from the Indonesian asylum?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 16, 2017 8:58:24 GMT
tpfkar Shoot, religion seeps out of your every post, even without the gems of odes to babymaking and the like. "I'm good at analysing people's motives and fears" HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAhahahahaahah.... Good one! And like anything obvious to you has any chance better than random of intersecting with reality. And you still revere your faiths so much that you believe anything good had to have come from it. You should just chill out and use it up before it's all gone instead of self-inflicting all that moist hand-wringing and worship of pain, both the real and manufactured, that you do. And psychopaths can have plenty of concern for suffering. Highly, freakily misdirected + incredibly narcissistic, of course. So much so that they can fervently hope that everybody gets wiped out. And your latest formulation is no less deranged. Which would you rather do, eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? Without ascribing some kind of transcendental meaning to life, you have no basis to deride 'the dead don't care' when the person who has died has gone to their death desiring that end and relieved at the end to their suffering. There is no way of reaching the conclusions that you have reached without some kind of intangible superstition. Same thing with free will, of course. And psychopaths have concern for their own suffering, and nobody else's. I am sickened by the suffering that you would continue to impose on others on the basis that if it isn't happening to you, it doesn't matter, and the sanctity of life trumps all other considerations. I'll answer your hypothetical once you answer mine. I asked first. Are you more viscerally appalled by the stories coming out of Belgium and The Netherlands, or by the pictures from the Indonesian asylum? Of course not, as has been repeatedly related to you, as a Bedlam visitor to the bedlamite. "Transcendental meaning" and "intangible superstition" are teats you suckle so keenly that you can't conceive of life without. As for your positively demented non-recognition of the ridiculously comic irony of "no real choice" yet you must furiously choose to get others to choose to change on free will, there are nothing but commiserative (^∇^) laughs. And the truism "dead can't care" as justification for anything is strictly the realm of the deranged. On psychopaths, like just about everything you freely spout about, you should educate yourself on yourself. "Impaired", "abnormal", "comically bizarre" etc., does not mean nonexistent. "I'll answer your hypothetical once you answer mine. I asked first."You can suck it. Your question is, like most of your output, both comically leading and deranged. The fact that you can't grasp that my "question" was just to highlight that simple fact is more grist for the wtf mill. Would you rather eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? And I haven't seen your wank porn. 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 16, 2017 18:58:53 GMT
tpfkar Without ascribing some kind of transcendental meaning to life, you have no basis to deride 'the dead don't care' when the person who has died has gone to their death desiring that end and relieved at the end to their suffering. There is no way of reaching the conclusions that you have reached without some kind of intangible superstition. Same thing with free will, of course. And psychopaths have concern for their own suffering, and nobody else's. I am sickened by the suffering that you would continue to impose on others on the basis that if it isn't happening to you, it doesn't matter, and the sanctity of life trumps all other considerations. I'll answer your hypothetical once you answer mine. I asked first. Are you more viscerally appalled by the stories coming out of Belgium and The Netherlands, or by the pictures from the Indonesian asylum? Of course not, as has been repeatedly related to you, as a Bedlam visitor to the bedlamite. "Transcendental meaning" and "intangible superstition" are teats you suckle so keenly that you can't conceive of life without. As for your positively demented non-recognition of the ridiculously comic irony of "no real choice" yet you must furiously choose to get others to choose to change on free will, there are nothing but commiserative (^∇^) laughs. And the truism "dead can't care" as justification for anything is strictly the realm of the deranged. On psychopaths, like just about everything you freely spout about, you should educate yourself on yourself. "Impaired", "abnormal", "comically bizarre" etc., does not mean nonexistent. "I'll answer your hypothetical once you answer mine. I asked first."You can suck it. Your question is, like most of your output, both comically leading and deranged. The fact that you can't grasp that my "question" was just to highlight that simple fact is more grist for the wtf mill. Would you rather eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? And I haven't seen your wank porn. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I wasn't using "the dead don't care" as a stand-alone justification for allowing people to access medically assisted dying. It's in conjunction with the fact that these people have requested dying, and go to their death feeling relieved that their suffering is soon to end. Therefore there can be no negative consequence for the person who has been assisted to die, and opposition to the right to die can never be waged on their behalf. If it's not on behalf of the person who would be assisted to die, then you're either defending slavery (i.e. those people have to suffer for the benefit of the emotional wellbeing of others), or you're making a metaphysical argument about the sanctity of life. Or both of those concepts. The definition of psychopath entails lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. My question isn't deranged; because your implicit point throughout the entire exchange has been that death is the worst thing that can possibly happen to a person, and we should rather have people tortured for as long as we can keep them alive rather than allow them to die (even if optimally we should treat their illness, it would still be better to torture indefinitely than to kill).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 16, 2017 19:17:46 GMT
tpfkar Of course not, as has been repeatedly related to you, as a Bedlam visitor to the bedlamite. "Transcendental meaning" and "intangible superstition" are teats you suckle so keenly that you can't conceive of life without. As for your positively demented non-recognition of the ridiculously comic irony of "no real choice" yet you must furiously choose to get others to choose to change on free will, there are nothing but commiserative (^∇^) laughs. And the truism "dead can't care" as justification for anything is strictly the realm of the deranged. On psychopaths, like just about everything you freely spout about, you should educate yourself on yourself. "Impaired", "abnormal", "comically bizarre" etc., does not mean nonexistent. "I'll answer your hypothetical once you answer mine. I asked first."You can suck it. Your question is, like most of your output, both comically leading and deranged. The fact that you can't grasp that my "question" was just to highlight that simple fact is more grist for the wtf mill. Would you rather eat glass or have a nice meal but inflict glass meals on countless? And I haven't seen your wank porn. I wasn't using "the dead don't care" as a stand-alone justification for allowing people to access medically assisted dying. It's in conjunction with the fact that these people have requested dying, and go to their death feeling relieved that their suffering is soon to end. Therefore there can be no negative consequence for the person who has been assisted to die, and opposition to the right to die can never be waged on their behalf. If it's not on behalf of the person who would be assisted to die, then you're either defending slavery (i.e. those people have to suffer for the benefit of the emotional wellbeing of others), or you're making a metaphysical argument about the sanctity of life. Or both of those concepts. The definition of psychopath entails lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. My question isn't deranged; because your implicit point throughout the entire exchange has been that death is the worst thing that can possibly happen to a person, and we should rather have people tortured for as long as we can keep them alive rather than allow them to die (even if optimally we should treat their illness, it would still be better to torture indefinitely than to kill). Nobody said "stand-alone". And you were and are still using the bizarre argument of abuse in dungeon-asylums as justification for letting them off themselves as opposed to the hospitals just providing good care. The negative consequence is those many who will get consumed by the system who would otherwise have recovered and be glad for it. And no, it's not slavery or the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's simply not wanting for countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. Impaired empathy, not a lack of it. Horribly morbidly distorted as in "the dead can't care" as any justification for anything. And of course you are continually completely lugubriously absurd; there are countless fates worse than death. 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 16, 2017 19:28:46 GMT
tpfkar I wasn't using "the dead don't care" as a stand-alone justification for allowing people to access medically assisted dying. It's in conjunction with the fact that these people have requested dying, and go to their death feeling relieved that their suffering is soon to end. Therefore there can be no negative consequence for the person who has been assisted to die, and opposition to the right to die can never be waged on their behalf. If it's not on behalf of the person who would be assisted to die, then you're either defending slavery (i.e. those people have to suffer for the benefit of the emotional wellbeing of others), or you're making a metaphysical argument about the sanctity of life. Or both of those concepts. The definition of psychopath entails lack of concern for the wellbeing of others. My question isn't deranged; because your implicit point throughout the entire exchange has been that death is the worst thing that can possibly happen to a person, and we should rather have people tortured for as long as we can keep them alive rather than allow them to die (even if optimally we should treat their illness, it would still be better to torture indefinitely than to kill). Nobody said "stand-alone". And you were and are still using the bizarre argument of abuse in dungeon-asylums as justification for letting them off themselves as opposed to the hospitals just providing good care. The negative consequence is those many who will get consumed by the system who would otherwise have recovered and be glad for it. And no, it's not slavery or the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's simply not wanting for countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. Impaired empathy, not a lack of it. Horribly morbidly distorted as in "the dead can't care" as any justification for anything. And of course you are continually completely lugubriously absurd; there are countless fates worse than death. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"You're implying that "the dead don't care" is being used alone to justify killing people when you compare it to hypothetical situations in which unconsenting people are killed. And I'm not saying that there's a dichotomy between chaining people to the beds and allowing them to die. In places which do provide good care to psychiatric patients, this is not always sufficient to allow the patient to achieve an acceptable quality of life. The humane and secular solution to this is to give those patients who haven't been able to attain an acceptable quality of life a way to end their suffering without risk and with the full sanction of the law. None of the people who won't go on to be glad that they didn't die will regret the fact that they didn't have the chance to find out whether they will be glad later that they didn't die. Conversely, if we're allowing none of these people to die, then a vast number of people are going to be kept suffering just so that a small proportion of those people can go on to attain a temporary sense of wellbeing. Slavery means not to be the owner of onesself; and when there are strict legal impediments to dying in the most controlled, swift, risk-free and painless method available that does not harm others; that is not allowing the person to have full sovereignty over their body, and thus is slavery. And if you admit that there are "countless fates worse than death", then how can you morally justify condemning people to endure those fates, often over the span of an entire lifetime?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 16, 2017 20:00:18 GMT
tpfkar Nobody said "stand-alone". And you were and are still using the bizarre argument of abuse in dungeon-asylums as justification for letting them off themselves as opposed to the hospitals just providing good care. The negative consequence is those many who will get consumed by the system who would otherwise have recovered and be glad for it. And no, it's not slavery or the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's simply not wanting for countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. Impaired empathy, not a lack of it. Horribly morbidly distorted as in "the dead can't care" as any justification for anything. And of course you are continually completely lugubriously absurd; there are countless fates worse than death. You're implying that "the dead don't care" is being used alone to justify killing people when you compare it to hypothetical situations in which unconsenting people are killed. And I'm not saying that there's a dichotomy between chaining people to the beds and allowing them to die. In places which do provide good care to psychiatric patients, this is not always sufficient to allow the patient to achieve an acceptable quality of life. The humane and secular solution to this is to give those patients who haven't been able to attain an acceptable quality of life a way to end their suffering without risk and with the full sanction of the law. None of the people who won't go on to be glad that they didn't die will regret the fact that they didn't have the chance to find out whether they will be glad later that they didn't die. Conversely, if we're allowing none of these people to die, then a vast number of people are going to be kept suffering just so that a small proportion of those people can go on to attain a temporary sense of wellbeing. Slavery means not to be the owner of onesself; and when there are strict legal impediments to dying in the most controlled, swift, risk-free and painless method available that does not harm others; that is not allowing the person to have full sovereignty over their body, and thus is slavery. And if you admit that there are "countless fates worse than death", then how can you morally justify condemning people to endure those fates, often over the span of an entire lifetime? I'm doing no such thing, and have pointed out repeatedly that using it as any justification of anything is psychopathic. Not unlike the super-villain who wants to end the world to stop the word's pain. Although even they would likely pause at repeating the massive suffering of sentient life beginning anew with its extended barbaric epochs. In any case, using the dungeon-asylums as argument for anything other than non-dungeon, good hospital care remains patently deranged. And yes, the psychopathic "dead can't regret" argument remains cartoonishly psychopathic. Anybody who can display competence enough to get released can perform the trivially easy if actually-decided immediate task or choose a more placid longer-term means. There are legal impediments to systems that would cause huge damage to countless vulnerable. And no, it's still not slavery or the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's still simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. I don't condemn anyone to such a fate. Those who are aren't competent to choose, much less reliably tell us, shouldn't be shuttled 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 18, 2017 11:34:21 GMT
tpfkar You're implying that "the dead don't care" is being used alone to justify killing people when you compare it to hypothetical situations in which unconsenting people are killed. And I'm not saying that there's a dichotomy between chaining people to the beds and allowing them to die. In places which do provide good care to psychiatric patients, this is not always sufficient to allow the patient to achieve an acceptable quality of life. The humane and secular solution to this is to give those patients who haven't been able to attain an acceptable quality of life a way to end their suffering without risk and with the full sanction of the law. None of the people who won't go on to be glad that they didn't die will regret the fact that they didn't have the chance to find out whether they will be glad later that they didn't die. Conversely, if we're allowing none of these people to die, then a vast number of people are going to be kept suffering just so that a small proportion of those people can go on to attain a temporary sense of wellbeing. Slavery means not to be the owner of onesself; and when there are strict legal impediments to dying in the most controlled, swift, risk-free and painless method available that does not harm others; that is not allowing the person to have full sovereignty over their body, and thus is slavery. And if you admit that there are "countless fates worse than death", then how can you morally justify condemning people to endure those fates, often over the span of an entire lifetime? I'm doing no such thing, and have pointed out repeatedly that using it as any justification of anything is psychopathic. Not unlike the super-villain who wants to end the world to stop the word's pain. Although even they would likely pause at repeating the massive suffering of sentient life beginning anew with its extended barbaric epochs. In any case, using the dungeon-asylums as argument for anything other than non-dungeon, good hospital care remains patently deranged. And yes, the psychopathic "dead can't regret" argument remains cartoonishly psychopathic. Anybody who can display competence enough to get released can perform the trivially easy if actually-decided immediate task or choose a more placid longer-term means. There are legal impediments to systems that would cause huge damage to countless vulnerable. And no, it's still not slavery or the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's still simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. I don't condemn anyone to such a fate. Those who are aren't competent to choose, much less reliably tell us, shouldn't be shuttled to their doom. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The justification for allowing people to die is not 'the dead don't care', it is the fact that they have firmly requested assisted dying, and there is no sensible or compassionate reason for denying them this request. The 'dead don't care' only comes in to the picture as a challenge for you to come up with a good reason why assisted dying should never be an option for anyone other than those with late stage terminal illnesses. Since you're the one in favour of having the government actively interfering with bodily sovereignty, the onus should (in a fair and progressive world) be on you to explain how the right to die would be detrimental to such people. Since you only believe that the human brain has supernatural powers up until death (based on what I've gleaned from conversation) and these supernatural abilities cease at the time of death, you can only come up with pearl clutching about how a permissive right to die policy would undermine the sanctity of life (though being careful to avoid using the term for its religious connotations). If a person does not have ownership of their own body up to the extent where they can make decisions regarding it which do not infringe on the rights of others, then they are being subjected to a state of slavery. And no, of course the oppressive and interminable suffering of the masses should not be compared to a bit of name calling; but it is very telling that you think that being called "n****r" once in the street is a worse fate than suffering for several decades with chronic, treatment resistant depression or another severe mental illness. And by supporting the law the way it stands, then you are maintaining the status quo of suffering for many unfortunate people who will otherwise face decades of unremitting suffering due to the fact that they aren't legal owners of their body or life, but yet the legally mandated maintenance of same is a dreadful burden on them. Your assertion that any one with any mental illness in any degree of severity are "not competent" to decide to die is based on cruel prejudice. It's based on the view that anyone with a mental illness is at a complete and irrevocable disconnect from reality (i.e. "deranged) and should be locked up in a psychiatric ward for the protection of themselves and others. If everyone with any degree of mental illness (it's estimated by the WHO that one in four will be thus afflicted at some point in their lives) were incompetent to make decisions concerning their own wellbeing, then the mental health system could not possibly keep up with having to imprison and care for all such people, and all mental health treatment facilities would be similar to the 'torture dungeons' of Indonesia, and there would be no economies capable of bearing the strain. Instead, many people with mental illness demonstrate that they are very clearly capable of looking after themselves, whilst also working full time, caring for children or relatives, paying their mortgage, etc. And yet you would generalise this very broad swathe of the population as being uniformly 'deranged' and incapable of the mere rudiments of coherent and rational thought. I would certainly hope that any members of your family who may be suffering (or suffer at some future time) from a mental illness will not confide in you; only to be stigmatised by being called "deranged" and being told that they shouldn't legally be permitted to make decisions for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 18, 2017 12:28:08 GMT
tpfkar I'm doing no such thing, and have pointed out repeatedly that using it as any justification of anything is psychopathic. Not unlike the super-villain who wants to end the world to stop the word's pain. Although even they would likely pause at repeating the massive suffering of sentient life beginning anew with its extended barbaric epochs. In any case, using the dungeon-asylums as argument for anything other than non-dungeon, good hospital care remains patently deranged. And yes, the psychopathic "dead can't regret" argument remains cartoonishly psychopathic. Anybody who can display competence enough to get released can perform the trivially easy if actually-decided immediate task or choose a more placid longer-term means. There are legal impediments to systems that would cause huge damage to countless vulnerable. And no, it's still not slavery or the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's still simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. I don't condemn anyone to such a fate. Those who are aren't competent to choose, much less reliably tell us, shouldn't be shuttled to their doom. The justification for allowing people to die is not 'the dead don't care', it is the fact that they have firmly requested assisted dying, and there is no sensible or compassionate reason for denying them this request. The 'dead don't care' only comes in to the picture as a challenge for you to come up with a good reason why assisted dying should never be an option for anyone other than those with late stage terminal illnesses. Since you're the one in favour of having the government actively interfering with bodily sovereignty, the onus should (in a fair and progressive world) be on you to explain how the right to die would be detrimental to such people. Since you only believe that the human brain has supernatural powers up until death (based on what I've gleaned from conversation) and these supernatural abilities cease at the time of death, you can only come up with pearl clutching about how a permissive right to die policy would undermine the sanctity of life (though being careful to avoid using the term for its religious connotations). If a person does not have ownership of their own body up to the extent where they can make decisions regarding it which do not infringe on the rights of others, then they are being subjected to a state of slavery. And no, of course the oppressive and interminable suffering of the masses should not be compared to a bit of name calling; but it is very telling that you think that being called "n****r" once in the street is a worse fate than suffering for several decades with chronic, treatment resistant depression or another severe mental illness. And by supporting the law the way it stands, then you are maintaining the status quo of suffering for many unfortunate people who will otherwise face decades of unremitting suffering due to the fact that they aren't legal owners of their body or life, but yet the legally mandated maintenance of same is a dreadful burden on them. Your assertion that any one with any mental illness in any degree of severity are "not competent" to decide to die is based on cruel prejudice. It's based on the view that anyone with a mental illness is at a complete and irrevocable disconnect from reality (i.e. "deranged) and should be locked up in a psychiatric ward for the protection of themselves and others. If everyone with any degree of mental illness (it's estimated by the WHO that one in four will be thus afflicted at some point in their lives) were incompetent to make decisions concerning their own wellbeing, then the mental health system could not possibly keep up with having to imprison and care for all such people, and all mental health treatment facilities would be similar to the 'torture dungeons' of Indonesia, and there would be no economies capable of bearing the strain. Instead, many people with mental illness demonstrate that they are very clearly capable of looking after themselves, whilst also working full time, caring for children or relatives, paying their mortgage, etc. And yet you would generalise this very broad swathe of the population as being uniformly 'deranged' and incapable of the mere rudiments of coherent and rational thought. I would certainly hope that any members of your family who may be suffering (or suffer at some future time) from a mental illness will not confide in you; only to be stigmatised by being called "deranged" and being told that they shouldn't legally be permitted to make decisions for themselves. It is a justification you continually use. People who are minimally physically capable and mentally competent and not utterly narcissistic and/or psychopathic can trivially accomplish the act by themselves if they've actually decided. There is no sensible nor compassionate reason to unnecessarily institute policies that would chew up countless who, save said policy, would subsequently recover and be grateful for it. No government sovereignty interference with not giving psychopaths fatally dangerous substances nor the deranged or otherwise mentally less than competent highly self-harming devices. In fact a progressive non-anarchic state has a responsibility to protect the mentally incompetent even from themselves. And a "progressive world" is not one where the morbid psychopaths get sentient life vanquished just to ensure the perpetual recurrence of the great barbarity and suffering of the barbaric phases of sentient life development, in place of extended epochs with tempering sublimated societies. "Supernatural powers" is an oxymoron coveted by religious people of either the life-serenading type, the negative-image Death-worshiping brand of zealots, or their schizophrenic (colloq.) combination. A person has ownership of their body; they however do not have ownership of the state, and their horribly unreasonable demands to cater to their selfishness and narcissism and necroses do not have to be, and should not be entertained. And no, it's still not slavery nor the n-word, either. Nor harassing you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults". It's still simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the faithful of perpetual suffering. Regardless of your hoses of irrationality and lugubrious comical hyperbole (you're posting, right?), using dungeon-asylums as argument for anything other than non-dungeon, good hospital care remains patently deranged. And anyone not mentally incompetent could easily check the boxes to be released and then accomplish the trivial-effort immediate task or the more placid long-term option, all without narcissistically embroiling those whom it would scar nor instituting policies that would callously and unnecessarily destroy countless, regardless of the gorked justifications of "the dead can't care nor suffer" and their various other just-as-psychopathic variations. And English has to be used in frank discussions like these; if it proves to be too much for you maybe you can hook up with some naive college kids and get you some of your oft-yapped safe-spaces set up for insipid wailing hypocrite cupcake nutcases. 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 23, 2017 8:08:40 GMT
tpfkar What “death with dignity” advocates forget is that, no matter how much suffering the patient is going through, even if they are suffering without hope of survival, these patients are still just as valuable and worthy of life as they were before they were suffering. Humans cannot lose their dignity. Dignity is something every human inherently possesses, because we are all made in God’s image. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"You do not have any insight that I do not have regarding suicide, as someone who has been suicidal continuously for 20 years. If I state that it is difficult for me to commit suicide (regardless of why it is difficult) then it is difficult for me to commit suicide; as it is for a great many other people. There is no secular rationale for placing such a high value on a person's life as to render irrelevant that person's own desires for their life. It's arguable whether the state should have the power to protect mentally unstable people from harm; but a peaceful suicide is the antithesis of harm. Non-existence can never be harmful, and when certain pharmaceutical products are administered, this diminishes the experience of being harm to trivial levels. The vanishingly small proportion of people who would both subsequently recover from their disorder and also enjoy life (i.e. they will later enjoy the illusion that they are creating value) is not sufficient for perpetuating the suffering of many more people who will never until death be unburdened of their psychoses. Those who may have gone on to have illusions of value will regardless not know whether they were going to be one of the lucky minority in the future, and at the time of death will feel relief and will never feel regret for counterfactual scenarios which may have occurred in the future. The eternal recurrence of life is a poor argument against antinatalism. In the first place, such would be very unlikely to happen until humans go extinct at any rate, which is something that you would realise if you had sufficient grasp of evolutionary biology to realise that life evolves over the process of eons, not mere millenia. It would take such a long time for a new life form to reach a stage where it could be amenable to the influence of the supposedly 'enlightened' homo sapiens, that it's virtually unthinkable that such could occur before our own species goes extinct. Also, before birth nobody has consented to being part of that project and it would be categorically immoral to enlist people in that cause, especially when it is a conjectured cause and not one that can be proven. In the assisted suicide scenario, the state is not necessarily being asked to affirmatively go out of its way to facilitate people to die (although I do think that this should be covered under universal healthcare); it is simply being asked to cease from interfering with any arrangements that an individual might wish to make concerning their own death, unless those arrangements are directly causing someone else to be deprived of their rights. The 'dungeon asylum' illustrates that there are worse policies than allowing people to peacefully die in accordance with one's own expressed wishes, even if you are loathe to admit the same. Belgium and The Netherlands have amongst the best mental health care in the world, and are also deemed to be 2 of the most progressive and fair societies in the world. Indonesian society (by the evidence of the reports and photographs from their mental asylums) has very little regard for the welfare of psychiatric inpatients, and yet would balk at allowing those inpatients the chance to die under any circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 23, 2017 11:22:39 GMT
tpfkar What “death with dignity” advocates forget is that, no matter how much suffering the patient is going through, even if they are suffering without hope of survival, these patients are still just as valuable and worthy of life as they were before they were suffering. Humans cannot lose their dignity. Dignity is something every human inherently possesses, because we are all made in God’s image. You do not have any insight that I do not have regarding suicide, as someone who has been suicidal continuously for 20 years. If I state that it is difficult for me to commit suicide (regardless of why it is difficult) then it is difficult for me to commit suicide; as it is for a great many other people. There is no secular rationale for placing such a high value on a person's life as to render irrelevant that person's own desires for their life. It's arguable whether the state should have the power to protect mentally unstable people from harm; but a peaceful suicide is the antithesis of harm. Your whole post here demonstrates your incapacity. How long have you been using the quote feature? What child that has used this board for 5 minutes wouldn't have insight on quoting that you don't? You don't have particular insight on what a nutcase you are. 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 23, 2017 11:40:44 GMT
Human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worth—including preborn children, elderly individuals, those with special needs and others marginalized by society. Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I can manage the quote function quite well (apart from getting rid of those annoying boxes). Although I do notice that you didn't raise a hue and cry about graham forgetting how to quote someone correctly. And whether or not someone is 'competent' or a 'nutcase' is not a factor which diminishes the value of that person's suffering.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 23, 2017 12:52:22 GMT
tpfkar <further miCee free pretends and derangements> I can manage the quote function quite well (apart from getting rid of those annoying boxes). Although I do notice that you didn't raise a hue and cry about graham forgetting how to quote someone correctly. And whether or not someone is 'competent' or a 'nutcase' is not a factor which diminishes the value of that person's suffering. You're demented, of course. A child could point out to you the insight of Graham's spot-on reductio ad absurdum of your derangement and how it was of course nothing like your further derangement here in quoting. Not that the derangement you posted here was that far off from you typical distortions. And not "raising a hue and cry" even if a tiny bit merited, is of course very different from out of place raising one as a weeping "argument". But as always, feel free to include a link any time to the "travesties of justice against you". I don't believe Graham howled to others like a long-suffering inconsolable child about "harassment" for having posts actually responded to, nor out-situ teary bawl-bragged about being denied "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" because someone stopped replying - attempting to use such a cringeworthy gush to declare that it meant your derangements were somehow superior. You've got the "safe-space"-yapping victim role worked out coming and going. And no one suggested that you deranged nutcases don't suffer. Score another for your brilliant cognitive talents. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 23, 2017 13:06:44 GMT
This thread seems like some kind of strange internet courting ritual.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 23, 2017 13:16:38 GMT
tpfkar This thread seems like some kind of strange internet courting ritual. You're always able to see a sexy slant on things Sam. And I'm up for a three-way with you any time!
We exist as morphogenetic fields. The goal of four-dimensional superstructures is to plant the seeds of awareness rather than stagnation.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 23, 2017 13:18:21 GMT
tpfkar This thread seems like some kind of strange internet courting ritual. You're always able to see a sexy slant on things Sam. And I'm up for a three-way with you any time!
We exist as morphogenetic fields. The goal of four-dimensional superstructures is to plant the seeds of awareness rather than stagnation.I'm already finished. You guys were pretty good.
|
|