Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 2:04:50 GMT
tpfkar 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*****"Graham's altered version of my quote had nothing to do with the original statement. I substituted your text for cheesy quotes from a Christian pro-life website for humorous effect, to illustrate the fact that you're rehashing the same sanctity of life rhetoric, only divesting it of direct references to Jesus Christ and God. If someone can be permitted to die in a way that causes them little or no subjective sense of harm, and then their consciousness gives way to a state which does not and can never harm them, then how can you claim to be wanting to protect those people from harm? The only answer is that you are concerned that the sanctity of life will be violated; the only harm is to those who hold the truth the be self-evident that each human life is "infinitely valuable" (like in one of the quotes) and to transcend suffering and pain. And yes, if someone changes my words, claims victory in the argument and then refuses to continue to respond (even to admit that they changed the meaning of my words), then that is usually done to cover up the fact that their cherished beliefs are being challenged and cannot be defended with integrity. I also never claimed to have been harassed, merely pointed out that you persistently respond to others who have made it clear that they do not welcome your posts; and that you hypocritically want laws to protect Muslims from being sent emails with disagreeable content.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 24, 2017 2:35:44 GMT
tpfkar 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. Graham's altered version of my quote had nothing to do with the original statement. I substituted your text for cheesy quotes from a Christian pro-life website for humorous effect, to illustrate the fact that you're rehashing the same sanctity of life rhetoric, only divesting it of direct references to Jesus Christ and God. If someone can be permitted to die in a way that causes them little or no subjective sense of harm, and then their consciousness gives way to a state which does not and can never harm them, then how can you claim to be wanting to protect those people from harm? The only answer is that you are concerned that the sanctity of life will be violated; the only harm is to those who hold the truth the be self-evident that each human life is "infinitely valuable" (like in one of the quotes) and to transcend suffering and pain. And yes, if someone changes my words, claims victory in the argument and then refuses to continue to respond (even to admit that they changed the meaning of my words), then that is usually done to cover up the fact that their cherished beliefs are being challenged and cannot be defended with integrity. I also never claimed to have been harassed, merely pointed out that you persistently respond to others who have made it clear that they do not welcome your posts; and that you hypocritically want laws to protect Muslims from being sent emails with disagreeable content. You're demented enough to think dumping sister-words of your own dark faith demonstrates anything but your derangement. Graham's version succinctly demonstrated the demented nature of your line, and prompted you to energetically spin out in campy wondrousness. But I do understand you can't let go of your new version of Savior. Too bad your version of events is just as deranged as anything else you proffer, so as usual you're left with reciting unhinged bull with no link. Psychopathic lack of probity matched with overwrought irrationality must be another bitch along with your lifelong moaning. You puffed out your little bird chest about "not going to be harassed". You cried like a little girl in a separate thread about how, by not continuing to respond to your bawling derangements he somehow aggrieved you and denied you something, and how that somehow makes your lunacy less psychotic. Not to mention your gorgeously ironic wails about how noting the demented nature that your behaviors demonstrate is worse than calling you the n-word. Partial review of nutcase-city. And of course you're a repeat out-and out liar. At least you have your misery to suckle along with your death faith. 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 24, 2017 7:18:46 GMT
tpfkar Graham's altered version of my quote had nothing to do with the original statement. I substituted your text for cheesy quotes from a Christian pro-life website for humorous effect, to illustrate the fact that you're rehashing the same sanctity of life rhetoric, only divesting it of direct references to Jesus Christ and God. If someone can be permitted to die in a way that causes them little or no subjective sense of harm, and then their consciousness gives way to a state which does not and can never harm them, then how can you claim to be wanting to protect those people from harm? The only answer is that you are concerned that the sanctity of life will be violated; the only harm is to those who hold the truth the be self-evident that each human life is "infinitely valuable" (like in one of the quotes) and to transcend suffering and pain. And yes, if someone changes my words, claims victory in the argument and then refuses to continue to respond (even to admit that they changed the meaning of my words), then that is usually done to cover up the fact that their cherished beliefs are being challenged and cannot be defended with integrity. I also never claimed to have been harassed, merely pointed out that you persistently respond to others who have made it clear that they do not welcome your posts; and that you hypocritically want laws to protect Muslims from being sent emails with disagreeable content. You're demented enough to think dumping sister-words of your own dark faith demonstrates anything but your derangement. Graham's version succinctly demonstrated the demented nature of your line, and prompted you to energetically spin out in campy wondrousness. But I do understand you can't let go of your new version of Savior. Too bad your version of events is just as deranged as anything else you proffer, so as usual you're left with reciting unhinged bull with no link. Psychopathic lack of probity matched with overwrought irrationality must be another bitch along with your lifelong moaning. You puffed out your little bird chest about "not going to be harassed". You cried like a little girl in a separate thread about how, by not continuing to respond to your bawling derangements he somehow aggrieved you and denied you something, and how that somehow makes your lunacy less psychotic. Not to mention your gorgeously ironic wails about how noting the demented nature that your behaviors demonstrate is worse than calling you the n-word. Partial review of nutcase-city. And of course you're a repeat out-and out liar. At least you have your misery to suckle along with your death faith. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I will no longer be discussing the issue concerning graham. The fact is that nobody has been able to 'prove' why it is morally acceptable to take potentially catastrophic risks on someone else's behalf for a perceived benefit that was neither asked for nor would be missed. Apparently some people think that there is some kind of objective 'proof' which validates the choice to procreate under any and all circumstances, and then cease responding when asked what that proof is. And if the person receiving requested assistance to die is not experiencing subjective feelings of harm (but rather relief and dignity); then you only have recourse to (slightly tarted up) superstitious and hubristic notions of the 'infinite value of a human life'.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 24, 2017 14:10:18 GMT
tpfkar You're demented enough to think dumping sister-words of your own dark faith demonstrates anything but your derangement. Graham's version succinctly demonstrated the demented nature of your line, and prompted you to energetically spin out in campy wondrousness. But I do understand you can't let go of your new version of Savior. Too bad your version of events is just as deranged as anything else you proffer, so as usual you're left with reciting unhinged bull with no link. Psychopathic lack of probity matched with overwrought irrationality must be another bitch along with your lifelong moaning. You puffed out your little bird chest about "not going to be harassed". You cried like a little girl in a separate thread about how, by not continuing to respond to your bawling derangements he somehow aggrieved you and denied you something, and how that somehow makes your lunacy less psychotic. Not to mention your gorgeously ironic wails about how noting the demented nature that your behaviors demonstrate is worse than calling you the n-word. Partial review of nutcase-city. And of course you're a repeat out-and out liar. At least you have your misery to suckle along with your death faith. I will no longer be discussing the issue concerning graham. The fact is that nobody has been able to 'prove' why it is morally acceptable to take potentially catastrophic risks on someone else's behalf for a perceived benefit that was neither asked for nor would be missed. Apparently some people think that there is some kind of objective 'proof' which validates the choice to procreate under any and all circumstances, and then cease responding when asked what that proof is. And if the person receiving requested assistance to die is not experiencing subjective feelings of harm (but rather relief and dignity); then you only have recourse to (slightly tarted up) superstitious and hubristic notions of the 'infinite value of a human life'. I understand that it is embarrassing even for you, but I will. It is the thread topic, after all. And it informs your every post. The risks aren't 'catastrophic' , you can't take risks on the nonexistent or if you can it is unassailably superior to have a choice rather than only one side of the "options". "Would not be missed" in all it's presentation forms remains the justification of psycopaths, and you don't seem to know what "morally acceptable" means. And not apparently but certainly, you freely loose from your unhappy clown lips whatever deranged bullshyte pops into your Ada-like head. And having a blast for as long as you want/can with trivially easy once actually decided veto, and it's going to take you out soon enough anyway is about as far as it gets from the effluent you ode-to-procreation / death-for-all gushing nonsensical religious zealot schizophrenics hose. Get it while it's hot, or not, but don't be a decades-long narcissistic prick displaying total lack of integrity and basic sense and continuously moaning on about your pathetic incapacitates. 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 25, 2017 4:43:25 GMT
tpfkar I will no longer be discussing the issue concerning graham. The fact is that nobody has been able to 'prove' why it is morally acceptable to take potentially catastrophic risks on someone else's behalf for a perceived benefit that was neither asked for nor would be missed. Apparently some people think that there is some kind of objective 'proof' which validates the choice to procreate under any and all circumstances, and then cease responding when asked what that proof is. And if the person receiving requested assistance to die is not experiencing subjective feelings of harm (but rather relief and dignity); then you only have recourse to (slightly tarted up) superstitious and hubristic notions of the 'infinite value of a human life'. I understand that it is embarrassing even for you, but I will. It is the thread topic, after all. And it informs your every post. The risks aren't 'catastrophic' , you can't take risks on the nonexistent or if you can it is unassailably superior to have a choice rather than only one side of the "options". "Would not be missed" in all it's presentation forms remains the justification of psycopaths, and you don't seem to know what "morally acceptable" means. And not apparently but certainly, you freely loose from your unhappy clown lips whatever deranged bullshyte pops into your Ada-like head. And having a blast for as long as you want/can with trivially easy once actually decided veto, and it's going to take you out soon enough anyway is about as far as it gets from the effluent you ode-to-procreation / death-for-all gushing nonsensical religious zealot schizophrenics hose. Get it while it's hot, or not, but don't be a decades-long narcissistic prick displaying total lack of integrity and basic sense and continuously moaning on about your pathetic incapacitates. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The harms that await the unfortunate are absolutely catastrophic. There's cancer and countless different types of disease, there's poverty, hunger, there's disability, injury, there's mental illness, there's developmental disorders, there's autism, there's financial ruin, there's drug abuse. When you are born you are entered into countless different lotteries, but in most of the lotteries, instead of getting a 'prize', you get a disease or a disability, a mental illness, starvation, financial ruination, and so on. And if you truly believe that those who are alive (even in unpleasant circumstances) are in a superior position to those who have never been born and never will be born; then you've had conspicuously little to say about the tragedy of the barren planets that exist within our solar system. A greater tragedy than the holocaust, surely, because at least those who were killed during the holocaust got to experience choice and pleasure at some time during their lives. You ought to be out protesting abortion with placards reading "ABORTION IS MURDER!", with a photograph of a dismembered foetus. And ought to have as many children yourself as it would be practical to have. If you're not doing these things, then it's either because you are a deplorable failure and hypocrite within the terms of your own espoused philosophy, or because on some level you realise that the pleasures that we experience in life are not really creating value out of nothing; but are only solutions that we create in response to the problematic nature of our existence. You claim that anyone 'mentally competent' is able to commit suicide trivially, but even if so, this means that you are sentencing countless people to decades of often unyielding torment, then claiming it's not a problem to be concerned about because the suffering of the 'mentally incompetent' is not as valuable as the suffering of others. Either that, or you are ignoring the lived experiences of many suicidal individuals who have never marshaled the courage to follow through on their desires, much in the way that a neo-Nazi denies the existence of and egregious injustice of, the holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 25, 2017 12:23:04 GMT
tpfkar <deranged incompetence upon deranged incompetence> I realize you narcissists are a class unto yourselves, but I never hinted that it was not difficult to commit suicide for people falling into certain categories. For the physically minimally capable mentally competent non-psychopath who isn't a drama queen however, it is a trivially easy task once actually decided on. What value a particular person places on their life is irrelevant, your continuing awes and odes to your sister-faiths notwithstanding. I'm sure you can also argue whether or not toddlers should be provided razor blades and antifreeze as well. You and your Randian ideas of "progressive". I know, I know, another variation of the "the they can't be hurt while they're dead" psychopathy. Masses of people in fact already do recover and would likely not have if the state was there to push them over in their times of crisis. It would be very unlikely for intentional extinction to occur at all, save a "beneficent" psychopath getting nuke or total water supply access or the like. Just the prolonged agony and brutality of the imploding societies in steep decline and violent burgeoning rapacious ones alike. And of course you are again the twit for mentioning the "millennia" like it's from anywhere save your own unmoored head. And no one suggested the development of new sentience while humans were still dominant. The enlightenment of existing humans could greatly ease suffering for existing humans for unspecifiably long durations, just as attempting to extinguish them would greatly increase and prolong their anguish. If however humans are wiped out then the prolonged suffering just begins anew at an even earlier more inherently untempered savage point, regardless of your fundamental ignorance of infinite scales. Terra analogs come and go, refined peoples could come and go between them. And nobody before birth has not consented to being born. There's no "cause" except for you zealots. Just an opportunity to experience or reject a ride. With having options always being preferable to you death despots' denial of choice. You've specified you want over-the-counter access to suicide pills. Regardless, it is still a case of the consequent damages far outweighing the purported benefits. The state should be far more concerned with the vulnerable than for the self-loving inflictors upon others. I'm sure no one's rights are deprived by having TNT for mad bombers and loaded firearms for the distraught, amiright? Your continuing dungeon asylum "argument" simply shows your deranged state. For the mentally able, it's an argument solely for non-dungeon care, and says nothing about arranging suicide for patients. And you don't know what disregard the Indonesians or any other society with dungeon-like care would or would not balk at with regards to mental patients. And your rationales on "best", "most progressive and fair" and the like are simply to be chuckled at in the same vein as your claims of facing "harassment" for having posts actually responded to, your out-situ teary brags (^▽^) about being denied "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" because someone stopped replying - in a cringeworthy gush-attempt to declare that it meant your derangements were somehow superior, and of course your ludicrously funny n-word sobs. Whether you're replied to nor not, you field the safe-space bawler burlesque like a true pro victim. 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 26, 2017 2:55:50 GMT
tpfkar <deranged incompetence upon deranged incompetence> I realize you narcissists are a class unto yourselves, but I never hinted that it was not difficult to commit suicide for people falling into certain categories. For the physically minimally capable mentally competent non-psychopath who isn't a drama queen however, it is a trivially easy task once actually decided on. It would be very unlikely for intentional extinction to occur at all, save a "beneficent" psychopath getting nuke or total water supply access or the like. Just the prolonged agony and brutality of the imploding societies in steep decline and violent burgeoning rapacious ones alike. And of course you are again the twit for mentioning the "millennia" like it's from anywhere save your own unmoored head. And no one suggested the development of new sentience while humans were still dominant. The enlightenment of existing humans could greatly ease suffering for existing humans for unspecifiably long durations, just as attempting to extinguish them would greatly increase and prolong their anguish. If however humans are wiped out then the prolonged suffering just begins anew at an even earlier more inherently untempered savage point, regardless of your fundamental ignorance of infinite scales. Terra analogs come and go, refined peoples could come and go between them. And nobody before birth has not consented to being born. There's no "cause" except for you zealots. Just an opportunity to experience or reject a ride. With having options always being preferable to you death despots' denial of choice. You've specified you want over-the-counter access to suicide pills. Regardless, it is still a case of the consequent damages far outweighing the purported benefits. The state should be far more concerned with the vulnerable than for the self-loving inflictors upon others. I'm sure no one's rights are deprived by having TNT for mad bombers and loaded firearms for the distraught, amiright? Your continuing dungeon asylum "argument" simply shows your deranged state. For the mentally able, it's an argument solely for non-dungeon care, and says nothing about arranging suicide for patients. And you don't know what disregard the Indonesians or any other society with dungeon-like care would or would not balk at with regards to mental patients. And your rationales on "best", "most progressive and fair" and the like are simply to be chuckled at in the same vein as your claims of facing "harassment" for having posts actually responded to, your out-situ teary brags (^▽^) about being denied "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" because someone stopped replying - in a cringeworthy gush-attempt to declare that it meant your derangements were somehow superior, and of course your ludicrously funny n-word sobs. Whether you're replied to nor not, you field the safe-space bawler burlesque like a true pro victim. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"[/quote]The statistics prove that suicide is NOT an easy option, regardless of whether the barriers are physical, instinctual or "mental incompetence" as you allege. And if someone is "mentally incompetent", you still have to justify why 'mental incompetence' should carry the tarriff of several decades of suffering as a penalty; when the 'mentally incompetent' had no control or consent over the circumstances of coming into existence. I think that ALL people should be protected from harm in whatever way it is rational and humane to protect them from harm, which would include their thoughts on the matter. A toddler doesn't really have a competent understanding of the concept of "harm", which is why they get into a spot of trouble if they are allowed access to razor blades or the bleach under the sink. Therefore, they should be watched over to ensure that they don't make a mistake that is going to cause them pain and possibly carry long term consequences. Older humans may reach the realisation, through painful experience, that life itself is harmful, and if they would like to be protected from that harm by being given an option to peacefully die, then we should protect them from harm in that manner. If I keep throwing out variations on 'the dead can't be harmed', it's because it's true in accordance with the laws of nature as they are best understood. When we consider this in tandem with a person's own expressed wishes, then the rational and humane person realises that assisted suicide is less harmful than withholding this option. You haven't explained why this point is unimportant, or what there is to be safeguarded about life over and above the religious concept of 'sanctity of life'. The pleasure that the people who do recover is only valuable as a solution to a problem that needn't exist, and would come at the cost and on the backs of the catastrophic suffering of many others. The ones who may have gone on to recover from their illness will not know whether they are one of the lucky minority who would have recovered at the time of being given the choice to die. And again, I have offered safeguards to help ensure that those who receive the treatment are not acting rashly or impulsively on the basis of a short-term crisis, and in fact the system that I have proposed may save more of those lives than it would kill. There will be extinction at some point. There is a merit to the argument that antinatalism could engender a self-defeating cycle if it only influences those whose progeny would help to reduce suffering in the future. But that's certainly not an argument in favour of life itself, it just means that there needs to be some careful consideration about what would be the best way to go about spreading the argument, and the ethical dilemma of whether it is morally justifiable to create more solders to push them into a battle that they didn't consent to fight. The default should not be the act of presuming consent and imposing upon someone else when there is no problem that would be fixed (from the unborn's perspective) by bringing them into existence. Not when the risks are so catastrophic and you are impotent to protect them from many of these risks, and you can also not guarantee that they will value the same things that you will value. What problem were you solving for your as-yet-non-existent children when you decided to bring them into the world? What unpleasant circumstances were they suffering prior to birth, from which you needed to save them? The only damage is to those who want to believe that the value of a human life transcends suffering, and that one human life belongs more to the collective than to the individual themselves. I wasn't holding up a dichotomy between torture and assisted suicide; simply stating the well documented fact that the places in which a patient might receive assistance to die are in fact the places that have the most enviable quality of life, equality and mental health care in the world; whereas the places in which psychiatric inpatients are treated in a savage manner are likely to be the very last places in the world where the option of assisted dying becomes available. Therefore it is reasonable to deduce that Belgium and The Netherlands have arrived at their relatively permissive policies on the right to die based on compassion and secular progressivism.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 26, 2017 6:09:09 GMT
tpfkar I understand that it is embarrassing even for you, but I will. It is the thread topic, after all. And it informs your every post. The risks aren't 'catastrophic' , you can't take risks on the nonexistent or if you can it is unassailably superior to have a choice rather than only one side of the "options". "Would not be missed" in all it's presentation forms remains the justification of psycopaths, and you don't seem to know what "morally acceptable" means. And not apparently but certainly, you freely loose from your unhappy clown lips whatever deranged bullshyte pops into your Ada-like head. And having a blast for as long as you want/can with trivially easy once actually decided veto, and it's going to take you out soon enough anyway is about as far as it gets from the effluent you ode-to-procreation / death-for-all gushing nonsensical religious zealot schizophrenics hose. Get it while it's hot, or not, but don't be a decades-long narcissistic prick displaying total lack of integrity and basic sense and continuously moaning on about your pathetic incapacitates. The harms that await the unfortunate are absolutely catastrophic. There's cancer and countless different types of disease, there's poverty, hunger, there's disability, injury, there's mental illness, there's developmental disorders, there's autism, there's financial ruin, there's drug abuse. When you are born you are entered into countless different lotteries, but in most of the lotteries, instead of getting a 'prize', you get a disease or a disability, a mental illness, starvation, financial ruination, and so on. And if you truly believe that those who are alive (even in unpleasant circumstances) are in a superior position to those who have never been born and never will be born; then you've had conspicuously little to say about the tragedy of the barren planets that exist within our solar system. A greater tragedy than the holocaust, surely, because at least those who were killed during the holocaust got to experience choice and pleasure at some time during their lives. You ought to be out protesting abortion with placards reading "ABORTION IS MURDER!", with a photograph of a dismembered foetus. And ought to have as many children yourself as it would be practical to have. If you're not doing these things, then it's either because you are a deplorable failure and hypocrite within the terms of your own espoused philosophy, or because on some level you realise that the pleasures that we experience in life are not really creating value out of nothing; but are only solutions that we create in response to the problematic nature of our existence. You claim that anyone 'mentally competent' is able to commit suicide trivially, but even if so, this means that you are sentencing countless people to decades of often unyielding torment, then claiming it's not a problem to be concerned about because the suffering of the 'mentally incompetent' is not as valuable as the suffering of others. Either that, or you are ignoring the lived experiences of many suicidal individuals who have never marshaled the courage to follow through on their desires, much in the way that a neo-Nazi denies the existence of and egregious injustice of, the holocaust. Only to those that desire life. The risks aren't catastrophic but in fact are very favorable and only getting better. Getting life itself is the lottery that trumps them all. Not everyone is mired in unseemly self-pity. And your "barren planet" analogy is another bizarre one. The fact that not winning the Great Shot at Life lottery is not a tragedy in no way makes it a less happy occurrence when someone has the great luck get it. And you with your procreation worship probably were out holding placards at abortion clinics, and will likely be back at some stage, that is if you don't conclude your current Heaven's Gate thing. And sorry, pleasure is gooood. Kind of a definitional thing. And no sentencing of anyone. As covered endlessly, anybody so disabled could likely be deemed terminal, and in any case the palliated refusal of nutrition and moisture is always an option - provided the individual has the wits to be able to choose. And no "courage" is needed unless they're trying to circumvent actually shedding still held desires for life. And no, it's not "neo-Nazi holocaust" , except maybe for your plans, nor slavery nor the n-word, either. Nor harassment for replying to you, you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" for not replying to your professional victim-self. It's simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the moan-chants of the deranged Faithful of Perpetual Suffering. 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 26, 2017 9:41:22 GMT
tpfkar The harms that await the unfortunate are absolutely catastrophic. There's cancer and countless different types of disease, there's poverty, hunger, there's disability, injury, there's mental illness, there's developmental disorders, there's autism, there's financial ruin, there's drug abuse. When you are born you are entered into countless different lotteries, but in most of the lotteries, instead of getting a 'prize', you get a disease or a disability, a mental illness, starvation, financial ruination, and so on. And if you truly believe that those who are alive (even in unpleasant circumstances) are in a superior position to those who have never been born and never will be born; then you've had conspicuously little to say about the tragedy of the barren planets that exist within our solar system. A greater tragedy than the holocaust, surely, because at least those who were killed during the holocaust got to experience choice and pleasure at some time during their lives. You ought to be out protesting abortion with placards reading "ABORTION IS MURDER!", with a photograph of a dismembered foetus. And ought to have as many children yourself as it would be practical to have. If you're not doing these things, then it's either because you are a deplorable failure and hypocrite within the terms of your own espoused philosophy, or because on some level you realise that the pleasures that we experience in life are not really creating value out of nothing; but are only solutions that we create in response to the problematic nature of our existence. You claim that anyone 'mentally competent' is able to commit suicide trivially, but even if so, this means that you are sentencing countless people to decades of often unyielding torment, then claiming it's not a problem to be concerned about because the suffering of the 'mentally incompetent' is not as valuable as the suffering of others. Either that, or you are ignoring the lived experiences of many suicidal individuals who have never marshaled the courage to follow through on their desires, much in the way that a neo-Nazi denies the existence of and egregious injustice of, the holocaust. Only to those that desire life. The risks aren't catastrophic but in fact are very favorable and only getting better. Getting life itself is the lottery that trumps them all. Not everyone is mired in unseemly self-pity. And your "barren planet" analogy is another bizarre one. The fact that not winning the Great Shot at Life lottery is not a tragedy in no way makes it a less happy occurrence when someone has the great luck get it. And you with your procreation worship probably were out holding placards at abortion clinics, and will likely be back at some stage, that is if you don't conclude your current Heaven's Gate thing. And sorry, pleasure is gooood. Kind of a definitional thing. And no sentencing of anyone. As covered endlessly, anybody so disabled could likely be deemed terminal, and in any case the palliated refusal of nutrition and moisture is always an option - provided the individual has the wits to be able to choose. And no "courage" is needed unless they're trying to circumvent actually shedding still held desires for life. And no, it's not "neo-Nazi holocaust" , except maybe for your plans, nor slavery nor the n-word, either. Nor harassment for replying to you, you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" for not replying to your professional victim-self. It's simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the moan-chants of the deranged Faithful of Perpetual Suffering. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The risks and dangers are catastrophic to any sentient organism which is averse to harm. Which is ALL of them. And no matter what you think the odds are of a good life, someone is still going to end up drawing the fate of a lifetime with muscular dystrophy, or paranoid schizophrenia. Some are going to be tortured by other humans, and some are going to be the torturers. Life was created by unintelligent forces, and if there is no god, then that means that there is no absolute moral authority that has green stamped this set up; and yet just because you've been very fortunate you conclude that the terms of the lottery must therefore be fair for everyone. You should have the right to gamble with your OWN precious resources, but not with anyone else's. Unless you subscribe to some kind of crypto-theological philosophy which holds that life has innate value, you otherwise cannot gainsay that a life well lived is one in which we have had desires and the large majority of these desires have been satisfied. But when you create a desire, you create the potential for that desire to be thwarted (which can be described as a state of deprivation). The feelings of desire and deprivation have been created by unintelligent evolutionary forces, rather than by any intelligent designer, and the reason that they exist is because they optimise the chances of that organism's genetic material being transmitted to the next generation. The organisms that didn't have great desires would have perished and failed to pass on their genetic material to the next generation. There is no need for joy (i.e. the fulfillment of desire) if the desire itself was never created to begin with. To clarify a point about my pro-natalist past; I was never vehemently against abortion, and really the only strong misgiving I ever had about it was the fact that fathers (such as my potential future self) may miss out on the opportunity to be a father because the mother had decided to abort. I was never 'pro-life' in the sense that I believed that all conceived foetuses ought to be brought to term. Instead, I had been sold on the vision of parenthood by sentimental TV sitcoms and family movies, and thought that was the only future worth striving towards. Therefore, I questioned the judgement of those who had decided to remain childless. I felt as though they were making a mistake that they were going to regret later down the line. Like most people, I never gave any thought to the idea that by birthing children we are actually imposing upon them. It may be that had I learned about the philosophy of antinatalism at that time, I may have grudgingly realised that I couldn't rebut any of the arguments. Alternatively, perhaps I would have protected myself with absurd rationalisations, followed by making a straw man out of the antinatalist arguments, then refusing to continue with the discussion. There's simply no way of knowing. My erstwhile views on parenthood were foolish on all counts, but I'm by no means the only person who has ever discarded irrational beliefs and values as they have intellectually and emotionally matured. Yes, you are sentencing people. I, and many others, find it very difficult to go through with suicide (regardless of what those barriers are which have heretofore prevented us from doing so); so people such as myself (and many who are much, much worse off than my relatively pampered self) have been sentenced from the time of birth to an extended period of suffering. And even if someone's vestigial desire for life is holding them back from committing suicide, that is not in any way an endorsement of life itself if the person is seriously contemplating suicide to begin with. It's just a facet of our evolutionary programming that compels us to endure hardships so that the probability of passing on our genetic material is increased. I stand by 'holocaust' when used to describe the teeming mass of suffering that is endured every day by vast segments of humanity and the animal kingdom. It's an appalling waste of precious suffering, in service of a cause which is ethically beneath reproach.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 26, 2017 11:03:49 GMT
tpfkar Only to those that desire life. The risks aren't catastrophic but in fact are very favorable and only getting better. Getting life itself is the lottery that trumps them all. Not everyone is mired in unseemly self-pity. And your "barren planet" analogy is another bizarre one. The fact that not winning the Great Shot at Life lottery is not a tragedy in no way makes it a less happy occurrence when someone has the great luck get it. And you with your procreation worship probably were out holding placards at abortion clinics, and will likely be back at some stage, that is if you don't conclude your current Heaven's Gate thing. And sorry, pleasure is gooood. Kind of a definitional thing. And no sentencing of anyone. As covered endlessly, anybody so disabled could likely be deemed terminal, and in any case the palliated refusal of nutrition and moisture is always an option - provided the individual has the wits to be able to choose. And no "courage" is needed unless they're trying to circumvent actually shedding still held desires for life. And no, it's not "neo-Nazi holocaust" , except maybe for your plans, nor slavery nor the n-word, either. Nor harassment for replying to you, you nor denying you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" for not replying to your professional victim-self. It's simply not wanting countless to be morbid collateral on the back of the moan-chants of the deranged Faithful of Perpetual Suffering. The risks and dangers are catastrophic to any sentient organism which is averse to harm. Which is ALL of them. And no matter what you think the odds are of a good life, someone is still going to end up drawing the fate of a lifetime with muscular dystrophy, or paranoid schizophrenia. Some are going to be tortured by other humans, and some are going to be the torturers. Life was created by unintelligent forces, and if there is no god, then that means that there is no absolute moral authority that has green stamped this set up; and yet just because you've been very fortunate you conclude that the terms of the lottery must therefore be fair for everyone. You should have the right to gamble with your OWN precious resources, but not with anyone else's. Unless you subscribe to some kind of crypto-theological philosophy which holds that life has innate value, you otherwise cannot gainsay that a life well lived is one in which we have had desires and the large majority of these desires have been satisfied. But when you create a desire, you create the potential for that desire to be thwarted (which can be described as a state of deprivation). The feelings of desire and deprivation have been created by unintelligent evolutionary forces, rather than by any intelligent designer, and the reason that they exist is because they optimise the chances of that organism's genetic material being transmitted to the next generation. The organisms that didn't have great desires would have perished and failed to pass on their genetic material to the next generation. There is no need for joy (i.e. the fulfillment of desire) if the desire itself was never created to begin with. To clarify a point about my pro-natalist past; I was never vehemently against abortion, and really the only strong misgiving I ever had about it was the fact that fathers (such as my potential future self) may miss out on the opportunity to be a father because the mother had decided to abort. I was never 'pro-life' in the sense that I believed that all conceived foetuses ought to be brought to term. Instead, I had been sold on the vision of parenthood by sentimental TV sitcoms and family movies, and thought that was the only future worth striving towards. Therefore, I questioned the judgement of those who had decided to remain childless. I felt as though they were making a mistake that they were going to regret later down the line. Like most people, I never gave any thought to the idea that by birthing children we are actually imposing upon them. It may be that had I learned about the philosophy of antinatalism at that time, I may have grudgingly realised that I couldn't rebut any of the arguments. Alternatively, perhaps I would have protected myself with absurd rationalisations, followed by making a straw man out of the antinatalist arguments, then refusing to continue with the discussion. There's simply no way of knowing. My erstwhile views on parenthood were foolish on all counts, but I'm by no means the only person who has ever discarded irrational beliefs and values as they have intellectually and emotionally matured. Yes, you are sentencing people. I, and many others, find it very difficult to go through with suicide (regardless of what those barriers are which have heretofore prevented us from doing so); so people such as myself (and many who are much, much worse off than my relatively pampered self) have been sentenced from the time of birth to an extended period of suffering. And even if someone's vestigial desire for life is holding them back from committing suicide, that is not in any way an endorsement of life itself if the person is seriously contemplating suicide to begin with. It's just a facet of our evolutionary programming that compels us to endure hardships so that the probability of passing on our genetic material is increased. I stand by 'holocaust' when used to describe the teeming mass of suffering that is endured every day by vast segments of humanity and the animal kingdom. It's an appalling waste of precious suffering, in service of a cause which is ethically beneath reproach. Only to those that desire life. The risks aren't catastrophic but in fact are very favorable and only getting better. Not everyone is mired in unseemly self-pity, and you keep sillily conflating eventualities with risks. And the lottery is in getting, at all, the opportunity to choose or refuse life. And in fact antinalist derangements would magnify total barbarity and agony exponentially, not just risks of them, both in the grinding down of things and as things rise anew from more primitive savage states. Desire thwarted is not the end all, and in fact is good in and of itself in moderation. And your course evolutionary treatise is a big "so what". As far as your pro-natalist past, you were so zealously gone that you say you dedicated '70s sap tunes to it. it's probably all hardcore punk for you now, and maybe a more apathetic cold wave in the future when you make your next dramatic shift. You and other flighty deranged finding something trivially accomplished by those actually decided to be difficult for you doesn't make your incapacity reasonable. It's pretty hard for a dog to read a newspaper, too. It most certainly doesn't suggest that widespread collateral damage should be brooked in order to cater to the dark dreams of the lifelong morbid incompetent. And having the inane beliefs in the first place, especially at maniac levels, is pretty damning before even getting to the new mirror-image faith extremity you chose and the repeated patent irrationality of your trains of thought. From posed naked wank porn supposedly representing dungeon-asylums as meaning anything regarding facilitating suicide for "patients", other than perhaps that the dungeon shops might be more likely to, to your inability to see the ludicrous irony in holding that people have no "real choice" yet simultaneously choosing to furiously, in the most embarrassing ways, plead with people to choose differently, to your continuous elevation of religion and your most comical projection of your own personal faith onto others, to your crazy hypocrisies on just about everything. Again, list incomplete. And right, it's not that I favor keeping death-worshiping cultist inanities out of the state, it's that I'm "sentencing" people, like "neo-nazis" and the "holocaust". Much like you face "harassment" by having your posts replied to, and not having your posts replied to denies you "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" (and somehow leads you to sincerely puff that your lunacy triumphs. ), and of course your ludicrously funny n-word sobs. More pro than all of the shrilly-deranged perpetual victims around. 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 27, 2017 0:28:59 GMT
The risks and dangers are catastrophic to any sentient organism which is averse to harm. Which is ALL of them. And no matter what you think the odds are of a good life, someone is still going to end up drawing the fate of a lifetime with muscular dystrophy, or paranoid schizophrenia. Some are going to be tortured by other humans, and some are going to be the torturers. Life was created by unintelligent forces, and if there is no god, then that means that there is no absolute moral authority that has green stamped this set up; and yet just because you've been very fortunate you conclude that the terms of the lottery must therefore be fair for everyone. You should have the right to gamble with your OWN precious resources, but not with anyone else's. Unless you subscribe to some kind of crypto-theological philosophy which holds that life has innate value, you otherwise cannot gainsay that a life well lived is one in which we have had desires and the large majority of these desires have been satisfied. But when you create a desire, you create the potential for that desire to be thwarted (which can be described as a state of deprivation). The feelings of desire and deprivation have been created by unintelligent evolutionary forces, rather than by any intelligent designer, and the reason that they exist is because they optimise the chances of that organism's genetic material being transmitted to the next generation. The organisms that didn't have great desires would have perished and failed to pass on their genetic material to the next generation. There is no need for joy (i.e. the fulfillment of desire) if the desire itself was never created to begin with. To clarify a point about my pro-natalist past; I was never vehemently against abortion, and really the only strong misgiving I ever had about it was the fact that fathers (such as my potential future self) may miss out on the opportunity to be a father because the mother had decided to abort. I was never 'pro-life' in the sense that I believed that all conceived foetuses ought to be brought to term. Instead, I had been sold on the vision of parenthood by sentimental TV sitcoms and family movies, and thought that was the only future worth striving towards. Therefore, I questioned the judgement of those who had decided to remain childless. I felt as though they were making a mistake that they were going to regret later down the line. Like most people, I never gave any thought to the idea that by birthing children we are actually imposing upon them. It may be that had I learned about the philosophy of antinatalism at that time, I may have grudgingly realised that I couldn't rebut any of the arguments. Alternatively, perhaps I would have protected myself with absurd rationalisations, followed by making a straw man out of the antinatalist arguments, then refusing to continue with the discussion. There's simply no way of knowing. My erstwhile views on parenthood were foolish on all counts, but I'm by no means the only person who has ever discarded irrational beliefs and values as they have intellectually and emotionally matured. Yes, you are sentencing people. I, and many others, find it very difficult to go through with suicide (regardless of what those barriers are which have heretofore prevented us from doing so); so people such as myself (and many who are much, much worse off than my relatively pampered self) have been sentenced from the time of birth to an extended period of suffering. And even if someone's vestigial desire for life is holding them back from committing suicide, that is not in any way an endorsement of life itself if the person is seriously contemplating suicide to begin with. It's just a facet of our evolutionary programming that compels us to endure hardships so that the probability of passing on our genetic material is increased. I stand by 'holocaust' when used to describe the teeming mass of suffering that is endured every day by vast segments of humanity and the animal kingdom. It's an appalling waste of precious suffering, in service of a cause which is ethically beneath reproach. Only to those that desire life. The risks aren't catastrophic but in fact are very favorable and only getting better. Not everyone is mired in unseemly self-pity, and you keep sillily conflating eventualities with risks. And the lottery is in getting, at all, the opportunity to choose or refuse life. And in fact antinalist derangements would magnify total barbarity and agony exponentially, not just risks of them, both in the grinding down of things and as things rise anew from more primitive savage states. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The harms are extremely diverse and can be extremely catastrophic. Your personal experience and the experience of members of your family is not representative of the whole of humanity, let alone all of the animals that suffer due to the brutality of nature and human exploitation. What it boils down to is that you know what YOU'RE getting out of it, and perhaps subconsciously you are aware that someone else is footing the bill for your experience. Maybe it would make you uncomfortable to know that your joy comes at the expense of the agony of others, or perhaps you are so narcissistic and self-centered that you do feel entirely comfortable dictating what price it is acceptable for OTHERS to have to pay for your joy. It is known that antinatalism is the right answer, but it is not known how to do antinatalism the right way. My personal aspiration is to help to spread the philosophy through memetics, with the hope that some day this philosophy will be picked up by someone, or a group of people who will be capable of taking some real action to nip this problem in the bud; rather than have a situation where all the intelligent people stop breeding and an idiocracy ends up running amok (we've kind of started to see the beginning of this, as birth rates fall below replacement level in secular and progressive nations, whilst the native population in the developing world continues unchecked). If you're fulfilling your major desires and the only ones going unfulfilled are the trivial things (like getting a brand new Cadillac every 3 years, for example), then that's an acceptable ratio, and it can seem as though life is giving you something of value. But only the luckiest of the lucky can find themselves so fortunate as to find that their desires and needs are mostly being met. One thing that you have ignored is the hedonic treadmill effect, wherein when people come upon good fortune, they soon acclimatise to that new standard of living, which then itself becomes boring and unsatisfying. This is because humans are hardwired to always have these desires which are useful as motivation (hence, in evolutionary terms, are beneficial to the spreading of genes). And desire is really the latent threat of deprivation, so when we fulfil our desires (or needs), we are really just staving off deprivation, rather than creating new value. When your head is being held under water and you finally manage to resurface for breath, it isn't joy that is being created out of nothing, it is relief for the fact that the threat and discomfort has temporarily passed. With regards to my previous pro-life beliefs, those were very much within the range of mainstream attitudes. Although I disavow my former attitudes; I can say that at least I did not favour government interference in people's choices, I just happened to think that childless people had made an unwise choice. I wasn't in favour of having the government aggressively proscribe the pursuit of any options that didn't fit my philosophical view, the way that you are doing in respect to assisted dying. The psychogical profile of a person who wants to commit suicide but cannot bring themselves to do it is not really relevant to people who are capable of experiencing empathy for those who are different to themselves. The fact is that SOMEONE is suffering; the suffering is an event that is happening to a consciousness that exists in the universe; and that consciousness is finding it prohibitively difficult to extricate themselves from the suffering. Whatever the 'collateral damage' you have in mind; it isn't damage to the individuals who would be receiving the assistance to die. Those individuals would go to their deaths feeling assured of their decision and feeling relieved that there suffering is soon to be at an end. The process of dying itself is not one which would cause the individual to feel the subjective experience of being grievously harmed; so you aren't saving anyone from harm, you are ensuring that they will not find an easy way to end their harm. Therefore, there's not really anywhere else left to appeal except for the religious concept of sanctity of life. The collateral damage is to the esteem in which human societies hold the essence of life. It is impossible to argue from a materialist standpoint that individuals are harmed more by receiving the requested assistance to die in a peaceful manner than if we left them to the devices of imperfect medical science and their own courage (or lack thereof). Once again, nobody has any choice which is not predetermined (or at least is within their realm of control), but everyone is subject to cause and effect. Some of these causes include persuasion from other minds working in a deterministic fashion. Allowing people the CHOICE has nothing to do with the worship of death, any more than people who support the right to CHOOSE abortion are death cultists who fetishise the termination of healthy foetuses.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Oct 27, 2017 0:32:13 GMT
tpfkar <same ol' shrill derangements> Include "prove" with the various other concepts you comically misgrok. It is certainly trivially easy for the minimally physically capable, mentally competent who've actually decided. Many others distraught, narcissistic, crying for help, etc., doesn't change that one whit. There's no "tariff" on mental incompetence, merely a lack of justified confidence in their expressions really reflecting their true desires as opposed to derangement speaking. The eugenicist-types fundamentally aren't concerned with that critical distinction. The deranged are analogous to both toddlers and mad bombers as those two are to each other. Older humans not incapacitated or mentally damaged can trivially take care of their distaste of life w/o displays that trigger concern for their mental wellbeing. "Dead can't care" as numerous times noted is of course a vacuous truism, but as rationale for anything is pure demented psychopathy. It is no less "justification" for gutting people in their sleep. Your point is deranged, not "unimportant". And non-psychopaths obviously value life without your abiding hopeful need for and never-wavering credit to religion. Your "safeguards" are the laughable pap of one who wants suicide pills available to all over the counter and all sentient life to be vanquished. The mortal collateral damage to the vulnerable who would elsewise subsequently recover with treatment would be exponentially magnified with such a "system" incorporating the cynical nurturing of the disease and not recovery. You have no idea how species will evolve under whatever pressures are to come. And regardless, it's a matter of frequency and magnitude of suffering which would both grow explosively if antinatalist disorder became state policy. On the way to population cratering and back up anew at earlier less-tempered phases, the savagery would be astronomically more severe and persistent. Life in sublimated societies are blasts, multi-decade rides in amusement parks. Who with sane empathy wouldn't want to give that to other creatures? Especially since a person's life is their own to use, abuse, or discard at will. And riiight, assisted suicide wasn't practiced by John Wayne Gacy or Hitler, either. (neo-Nazi holocaust(;^∀;^)a movie in the making) Wait..., that actually sounds right up their alley. But more to the point, it is insane to have to explain to you that citing practices not generally shared by systems that either do or do not facilitate patient suicides has zero bearing on the wisdom of instituting such termination policies. Pure derangement of the same flavor of crying that I'm "sentencing" people, like "neo-nazis" and the "holocaust" , and that you face "harassment" by having your posts replied to, and denial of "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" for not having your posts replied to (and this somehow leads you to sincerely blow that your lunacy triumphs. ), and of course your ludicrously funny n-word sobs. More pro than all of the shrilly-deranged professional perpetual victims around. 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 Nov 1, 2017 20:00:41 GMT
tpfkar <same ol' shrill derangements> Include "prove" with the various other concepts you comically misgrok. It is certainly trivially easy for the minimally physically capable, mentally competent who've actually decided. Many others distraught, narcissistic, crying for help, etc., doesn't change that one whit. There's no "tariff" on mental incompetence, merely a lack of justified confidence in their expressions really reflecting their true desires as opposed to derangement speaking. The eugenicist-types fundamentally aren't concerned with that critical distinction. The deranged are analogous to both toddlers and mad bombers as those two are to each other. Older humans not incapacitated or mentally damaged can trivially take care of their distaste of life w/o displays that trigger concern for their mental wellbeing. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"You have no evidence that every one of the 97.5% of failed suicides are attributable to mental incompetence, or cries for help. Nobody is denying that teenagers who take a handful of random pills from the medicine cabinet are likely to be crying for help. But the man who actually shot his own face off? He was just doing that to get some attention? And what about the severely autistic adult with a mental age of 4, who is tormented by his condition every minute of his existence and is under constant supervision because he has the tendency to gouge his own eyes out when not constantly watched? Is that suffering acceptable just because it isn't happening to you? I'm not concerned with your specious 'distinction', because none such distinction exists in reality. Mental illness is not possession by demonic spirits, or an evil homunculus entering the head of the suffering. Mental illness is the way that a person's brain works. All you're saying is that people shouldn't allowed assistance to die because if they weren't experiencing a condition which caused them to want to die, then they wouldn't want to die. And this circuitous, catch-22 logic is the best argument you have against allowing people the right to assisted dying. Along with stigmatising all mentally ill people as 'deranged' people with the mindset of a toddler or the criminally insane. I hope that nobody in your family who might suffer from a mental illness will ever confide in you. The dead don't care is not the justification. The justification is that the person has requested assistance to die and has remained consistent in this wish, because the suffering is not worth the ever receding chance of a pharmaceutical miracle cure. The "dead don't care" only affirms the fact that no harm is being brought upon the individual. They went to their death wanting to die and experience no regret as a consequence of this decision. Nobody who would receive assistance knows whether they are one of the small minority who would otherwise go on to positively value life had their wishes been denied. And under what system of ethics is it permissible to deny the wishes of the many, because a small proportion of those who have been denied the right to choose will go on to be grateful for your interference? I'm not attributing valuing life to religion; but you're assigning a value to an individual person's life which trumps both the individual's bodily sovereignty and the humanitarian goal of reducing suffering. There is no empirical proof that the life of an individual is so valuable that the government justified in erecting unreasonable barriers (defined as any policy or use in force that exists other than to prevent a person's suicide from directly endangering an uninvolved third party) to inhibit suicide. Therefore you can only be deriving this from some quasi-religious mystical belief about the sanctity of human life. This is a purely conjectural argument, and one that you've copied from another poster, at that. It isn't morally acceptable to conscribe soldiers into this cause, knowing that many of them will suffer grievously and resent their existence. I find it interesting that you're happy to take this argument from Falconia, but ignored the part where she agreed with me that people should have the right to assistance in dying. You really missed a trick there; should have been calling Falconia a psychopath and a supervillain, given that those are allegedly the only personality types which would entertain the idea of making assisted dying available to anyone other than the terminally ill in the end stages of their illness. If 'life' is an amusement park, then the amusement park is powered by legions of the damned running ceaselessly on hamster wheels. As someone who isn't finding the enjoyment of the rides not worth the toil of the hamster wheel, I resent the fact that I was brought into this system without my consent, and that there are unreasonable barriers (as defined earlier in this post) to inhibit me from leaving the park. I'd love to know what you think is 'in it' for someone who suffers from a disease which causes their skin to tear off painfully at even the slightest of contact, or for someone with low-functioning autism who spends every day of their life in severe distress and will never be able to enjoy a normal life, and will be forced to endure that existence every day for 80-90 years. More likely, you don't think about these individuals because they were the ones who had the bad luck, and not you. Torture killers like to make people suffer before killing them, and no despotic regime that I am aware of had a program of assisted dying reserved for those who requested it. The nations which do have progressive laws on assisted dying tend to be the ones with the most enviable overall quality of living, and tend to have relatively equal distribution of wealth and robust welfare systems. All the hallmarks of a progressive and secular 21st century society. The nations which are furthest from implementing assisted dying are those in which religion is the most heavily influential, both in the lives of the citizens and in the upper echelons of government. Which nation do you think will have assisted dying first; Norway or Saudi Arabia? Or do you really believe that it would not be possible to formulate an educated guess?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 1, 2017 20:02:22 GMT
tpfkar Only to those that desire life. The risks aren't catastrophic but in fact are very favorable and only getting better. Not everyone is mired in unseemly self-pity, and you keep sillily conflating eventualities with risks. And the lottery is in getting, at all, the opportunity to choose or refuse life. And in fact antinalist derangements would magnify total barbarity and agony exponentially, not just risks of them, both in the grinding down of things and as things rise anew from more primitive savage states. The harms are extremely diverse and can be extremely catastrophic. Your personal experience and the experience of members of your family is not representative of the whole of humanity, let alone all of the animals that suffer due to the brutality of nature and human exploitation. What it boils down to is that you know what YOU'RE getting out of it, and perhaps subconsciously you are aware that someone else is footing the bill for your experience. Maybe it would make you uncomfortable to know that your joy comes at the expense of the agony of others, or perhaps you are so narcissistic and self-centered that you do feel entirely comfortable dictating what price it is acceptable for OTHERS to have to pay for your joy. Harms still aren't risks of harms, and the risks still aren't catastrophic. Nobody's required to foot the bill as this isn't a zero-sum game. There's no volcano god where some number of the lottery winners have to have their tickets punched early in order for others to experience the life. We're all rising here and and need the polar opposite of your headlong to rush to your morbid death paradise. Only getting net-betterer and betterererer, and that's what we should push. And nothing is being dictated to others; simply the state needs to stay out of the business of offing the mentally ill. Antinatalism as you've expounded (ˣ∀ˣ)is the lunatic answer. It would bring a frequency and magnitude and repetition of suffering unprecedented in our history. On the way to population cratering and back up anew at earlier less-tempered phases, the savagery would be astronomically more severe and persistent than any sane option. And here's your meme - Simply not true. By far the majority prefer this great life over giving it up early. The head-broken are the exception, not the rule. You've got to enjoy the ride and stop buying into all these things you think you're supposed to do and how you're supposed to feel. It hasn't served you at all thus far, to put it extremely diplomatically. And desires are manifestly not always contributive to reproductive success. More of that silly-silly from you! And of course pain is critical to the success of the species as well. You really need a drink or two. Sorry, odes to procreation via sappy '70s songs aren't much less wackdoodle than your current ideas. And the government not providing you with TNT or nukes to take care of your anthill problem isn't any "aggressive proscription of your pursuits" either, at least not for rational people in rational societies. Empathy would mean helping them through their crises and/or treating their needs and narcissist disorders, not booting them into the wood chipper. And sure, once they're worm food, no harm can they ever have again! MicLex Luthor for Prez! Or maybe just McTrump? And once again, your non-recognition of the great pathetic irony of your "choosing" to furiously, lugubriously strive to get other people to "choose" differently while you believe no actual choice exists - is the stuff of Alice in Wonderland on Angel's Trumpet. Crazy-fascinating. People have the CHOICE to trivially do what they want. They don't however have a right to have their silly demands that the state should chew up countless to serve their morbid delicacies met. Fetus termination is a woman's rights thing. They have complete say for certain durations. Not all in life is either babies up to the armpits nor alternatively black death for everyone and everything. Maybe try something just a little not endpoint extreme in your next makeover. 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 Nov 1, 2017 20:45:48 GMT
tpfkar The harms are extremely diverse and can be extremely catastrophic. Your personal experience and the experience of members of your family is not representative of the whole of humanity, let alone all of the animals that suffer due to the brutality of nature and human exploitation. What it boils down to is that you know what YOU'RE getting out of it, and perhaps subconsciously you are aware that someone else is footing the bill for your experience. Maybe it would make you uncomfortable to know that your joy comes at the expense of the agony of others, or perhaps you are so narcissistic and self-centered that you do feel entirely comfortable dictating what price it is acceptable for OTHERS to have to pay for your joy. Harms still aren't risks of harms, and the risks still aren't catastrophic. Nobody's required to foot the bill as this isn't a zero-sum game. There's no volcano god where some number of the lottery winners have to have their tickets punched early in order for others to experience the life. We're all rising here and and need the polar opposite of your headlong to rush to your morbid death paradise. Only getting net-betterer and betterererer, and that's what we should push. And nothing is being dictated to others; simply the state needs to stay out of the business of offing the mentally ill. If you're the person who has severe non-verbal autism and you will permanently have the mental age of 4, and you spend every day of your life screaming in torment and trying to physically harm yourself, then that is a catastrophic harm. The fact that this is a scenario which can, and does happen to some unfortunate humans, makes it an absolutely catastrophic risk. Even if only a very small number of people are going to experience a fate as bad as this, the harm of such an existence is not worth ANY degree of risk. Not even a 1 in 1 billion chance; because that still means that 1 child for every billion born will have to suffer like this as collateral damage in sustaining a completely pointless and unnecessary project, without reaping any of the benefits of the project. Especially since there's absolutely no chance that such an individual would ever be allowed to be euthanised, even if they did have the ability to verbally request it. And if you've reached a determination that it is morally acceptable for life to continue on Earth, then that means that you have accepted the harm which will be imposed upon the most unfortunate. You've accepted their suffering as a price that is worth paying for the pleasure that you will experience. It's the fair and just answer. I can't determine how much suffering you should be put through in order to derive a benefit for myself; and neither should you be able to put a price on someone else's suffering, when that person has no chance to be able to consent to being collateral damage for the perceived benefit of a collective. And if you're going to copy points from Falconia, how about acknowledging the fact that she did agree with me about the universal right to die by assisted suicide. Or are you not going to acknowledge that because then (in order to be consistent with your own standards), you'd have to accuse Falconia of being a supervillainous, sadistic psychopath, and you don't want to insult someone with whom you've previously enjoyed civil interactions? The 'head broken' or whatever other disparaging and stigmatising categories into which you wish to lump the unfortunate, did not do anything to deserve their misfortunes. Some people just suffer terribly no matter what they try to do, or whatever other people try to do to help them. So we should listen to them when they expound upon their own philosophical value system, or when they tell us that they're being harmed and they want to be facilitated in ending the harm by the only guaranteed method that exists. The song-writer deemed that there was an audience receptive to those lyrics; and it was a popular song. The song wasn't written on-demand for me specifically. And you know perfectly well that the proscription on suicide extends far beyond the criminalisation of assistance; and that the act of suicide itself is something that the authorities and members of the public are permitted and even obligated by law to prevent by any means necessary, up to and including the use of physical force, restraint and imprisonment. Someone who is known to be suicidal instantly forfeits all rights except the 'right' (obligation) to life. Empathy means to accept the fact that for some people, their problems will simply have no solution other than death. Empathy is not doing what you think is best for the person (whilst sugar coating the actual reality of their situation in order to make your proposed solutions seem adequate) and ignoring their wishes and making it unlawful for others to comply with that person's wishes.There's no cure for autism, for example, and people with more severe levels of autism do suffer very severely throughout their life, which makes life hell for the sufferer and also for the family (I've been binge reading personal stories of those who have grown up with an autistic sibling, who has destroyed the lives of the entire family). And I do believe in cause and effect, and that humans are caused and can cause. To deny this belief would be to deny the observed laws of physics. If there is someone willing to comply with my request and my request will not directly endanger another person, then the state should have no business whatever in interfering with that transaction. And by the standards that you've espoused, women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because the baby might otherwise go on to be grateful that they existed. But in the case of abortion, the woman is deciding on behalf of someone else who would exist. Why are counterfactuals acceptable in opposition to suicide, but not in opposition to abortion?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 1, 2017 20:55:26 GMT
tpfkar Include "prove" with the various other concepts you comically misgrok. It is certainly trivially easy for the minimally physically capable, mentally competent who've actually decided. Many others distraught, narcissistic, crying for help, etc., doesn't change that one whit. There's no "tariff" on mental incompetence, merely a lack of justified confidence in their expressions really reflecting their true desires as opposed to derangement speaking. The eugenicist-types fundamentally aren't concerned with that critical distinction. The deranged are analogous to both toddlers and mad bombers as those two are to each other. Older humans not incapacitated or mentally damaged can trivially take care of their distaste of life w/o displays that trigger concern for their mental wellbeing. You have no evidence that every one of the 97.5% of failed suicides are attributable to mental incompetence, or cries for help. Nobody is denying that teenagers who take a handful of random pills from the medicine cabinet are likely to be crying for help. But the man who actually shot his own face off? He was just doing that to get some attention? And what about the severely autistic adult with a mental age of 4, who is tormented by his condition every minute of his existence and is under constant supervision because he has the tendency to gouge his own eyes out when not constantly watched? Is that suffering acceptable just because it isn't happening to you? You babble; "every one" is not the issue. And the man "who actually shot his face off" is obviously not in his right mind, as there are much saner ways of going about it. And of course you left off grief, despondence, and all kinds of other derangements. And I'll leave you with your desire to have 4 year-olds and their equivalents facilitated in killing themselves. I'm not concerned that you're not concerned. We make a distinction for those not in their right minds and those who are minimally competent. You can write your cult bylaws how you like as you Heavens's Gate it up. And speaking of "concerned", I'm not about your grossly hypocritical deranged weeps for your ineptly oft-disparaged safe-spaces that you wail on about here. Nor your crying that I'm "sentencing" people, like "neo-nazis" and the "holocaust" , and that you face "harassment" by having your posts replied to, and denial of "the opportunity to correct the distortion made" "much less defend myself against the insults" for not having your posts replied to (and this somehow leads you to sincerely blow that your lunacy triumphs. ), and of course your ludicrously funny n-word sobs. More pro than all of the shrilly-deranged professional perpetual victims around. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 2, 2017 14:19:56 GMT
tpfkar "Dead can't care" as numerous times noted is of course a vacuous truism, but as rationale for anything is pure demented psychopathy. It is no less "justification" for gutting people in their sleep. Your point is deranged, not "unimportant". And non-psychopaths obviously value life without your abiding hopeful need for and never-wavering credit to religion. Your "safeguards" are the laughable pap of one who wants suicide pills available to all over the counter and all sentient life to be vanquished. The mortal collateral damage to the vulnerable who would elsewise subsequently recover with treatment would be exponentially magnified with such a "system" incorporating the cynical nurturing of the disease and not recovery. The dead don't care is not the justification. The justification is that the person has requested assistance to die and has remained consistent in this wish, because the suffering is not worth the ever receding chance of a pharmaceutical miracle cure. The "dead don't care" only affirms the fact that no harm is being brought upon the individual. They went to their death wanting to die and experience no regret as a consequence of this decision. Nobody who would receive assistance knows whether they are one of the small minority who would otherwise go on to positively value life had their wishes been denied. And under what system of ethics is it permissible to deny the wishes of the many, because a small proportion of those who have been denied the right to choose will go on to be grateful for your interference? I know it's not, so you should stop continually using it as one. Your other justification is nonsense as has been related to you many many times, as a minimally physically capable mentally competent person does not need ghoulish state policies instituted to do for them what they can trivially accomplish themselves if they have actually decided and are not deranged. "No further harm is being brought upon the individual" is strictly a line of attempted comfort for great pain given at funerals and the like. As justification for anything anywhere it is pure deranged psychopathy. It is of course imperative not to give into the demented demands of the deranged, absurdly narcissistic hypocrites on the back of their hysterically campy unhinged moaning, and to "interfere" with anyone attempting to institute gratuitously pernicious state programs and policies. It is an evident argument, at least outside of your religious leanings leading you to something else. Life and sentience will keep scrambling back, given time scales. And your idea of "copying" an argument just highlights another facet of your derangement. Personally I use any argument that makes sense wherever it comes from, in order to both inform myself and to respond. I deal in ideas, not group identification nor personal association. How about yourself? And I'm pretty sure Hitler was a real fan of regular nutrition. Oh hell, now we've got to fast ! And you're the only one I know that constantly manically serves the most ludicrous "arguments" in the goal of terminating all sentient life. And the just plain absurdity of making such distinctions, as if arguments all came about internally, or yours sprung solely from your own past-the-sell-by-date noggin' as opposed to your bastardized versioning of antinatalist youboobery and the like. Why don't you relate your personal "prime the pump" ideas? 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 Nov 3, 2017 10:35:00 GMT
tpfkar The dead don't care is not the justification. The justification is that the person has requested assistance to die and has remained consistent in this wish, because the suffering is not worth the ever receding chance of a pharmaceutical miracle cure. The "dead don't care" only affirms the fact that no harm is being brought upon the individual. They went to their death wanting to die and experience no regret as a consequence of this decision. Nobody who would receive assistance knows whether they are one of the small minority who would otherwise go on to positively value life had their wishes been denied. And under what system of ethics is it permissible to deny the wishes of the many, because a small proportion of those who have been denied the right to choose will go on to be grateful for your interference? I know it's not, so you should stop continually using it as one. Your other justification is nonsense as has been related to you many many times, as a minimally physically capable mentally competent person does not need ghoulish state policies instituted to do for them what they can trivially accomplish themselves if they have actually decided and are not deranged. "No further harm is being brought upon the individual" is strictly a line of attempted comfort for great pain given at funerals and the like. As justification for anything anywhere it is pure deranged psychopathy. It is of course imperative not to give into the demented demands of the deranged, absurdly narcissistic hypocrites on the back of their hysterically campy unhinged moaning, and to "interfere" with anyone attempting to institute gratuitously pernicious state programs and policies. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"There's no justification for the policies which force an individual to take it into their own hands to relieve themselves of an imposition that was forced upon them without their consent; and with the full sanction of the very government which takes aggressive and coercive measures (not exclusively limited to a ban on assisted suicide) to prevent suicides without necessarily solving the problems which drive many people to suicide. "The dead cannot be harmed" is nothing more than an affirmation of the fact that no trespass has been committed against the person who has been helped to die. On its own, it does not justify killing someone, and I have never used it as such. The recurrence of life is not something that is proven, if antinatalist policies are pursued in the appropriate way. And in any case, it does not justify the act of aggression committed against the innocent individual. Nobody should be brought into existence to be a soldier in a fight that has nothing to do with them. I never claimed that all arguments came about internally. Only that the argument of the recurrence of life doesn't really relate to the main reasons why you have expressed opposition to antinatalism; and this argument seems incongruous with your usual oeuvre. So far from it, that it is almost a tacit admission that the default character of 'life' is grotesque and violent, so it's better to keep on perpetuating smaller harms in order to prevent future great harms. That, and also the fact that you will not condemn the same poster for supporting the right to assisted dying in the very same thread, even though you've made it very clear that only psychopaths could ever support extending the right to assisted dying beyond those in the final stages of a terminal illness.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 3, 2017 10:41:26 GMT
tpfkar If 'life' is an amusement park, then the amusement park is powered by legions of the damned running ceaselessly on hamster wheels. As someone who isn't finding the enjoyment of the rides not worth the toil of the hamster wheel, I resent the fact that I was brought into this system without my consent, and that there are unreasonable barriers (as defined earlier in this post) to inhibit me from leaving the park. I'd love to know what you think is 'in it' for someone who suffers from a disease which causes their skin to tear off painfully at even the slightest of contact, or for someone with low-functioning autism who spends every day of their life in severe distress and will never be able to enjoy a normal life, and will be forced to endure that existence every day for 80-90 years. More likely, you don't think about these individuals because they were the ones who had the bad luck, and not you. No need for any of that; that's why we keep improving. Nobody's required to foot the bill as this isn't a zero-sum game. There's no volcano god where some number of the lottery winners have to have their tickets punched early in order for others to experience the life. We're all rising here and need the polar opposite of your headlong to rush to your morbid death paradise. Only getting net-betterer and betterererer, and that's what we should push. And nothing is being dictated to others; simply the state needs to stay out of the business of offing the mentally ill, regardless of your overexpressive pain & torture camp. And you've been giving your continuing consent ever since you possessed it. Furthermore, nobody's consented to the damage you continue to inflict upon them with your daily use of and contribution to infrastructure. And we've all had bad luck, and will all see an inglorious end soon enough. If a deranged person requests such "help", I'm quite sure the Gacys and the Hitlers and the third world dungeons of the world would happily assist them, although no "educated guess" is required for irrelevant tangents. You have no idea how far away these countries go in "assisting" death in one way or another. Throwing away the mentally ill is what the absurdly arrogant zealots of one faith or another do. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Nov 3, 2017 12:51:06 GMT
cupcakes, not that I've read most of this thread, but it's nice to at least see you bother with some content rather than just snark.
|
|