|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 12, 2017 23:45:38 GMT
tpfkar 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? 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. Dude, what horsesh!t. You were crying out again about how I'd used soembody else's argument, like 1, somebody owns arguments, and 2, like who holds arguments has any undelying connection to their validity. More pure gushy inanity from you. And "incongruous to your oeuvre". You really don't mind sounding like an utter twit. And of course savagery and the lack of civilization in general is violent, and your sheer wackdoodle that this needs to be "admitted" is just more of your crazy. It's precisely why sublimating societies are so preferable. And I'll argue against any position supporting termination of the mentally ill; even of you. But in any case, she has not engaged in patent lunacy after patent lunacy in attempting to support the wiping out of humanity nor repeatedly fielded the "dead can't care any more" empty truism for justification for anything, regardless of how badly you wish to hang on to her hem. 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 12, 2017 23:52:41 GMT
tpfkar 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. Dude, what horsesh!t. You were crying out again about how I'd used soembody else's argument, like 1, somebody owns arguments, and 2, like who holds arguments has any undelying connection to their validity. More pure gushy inanity from you. And "incongruous to your oeuvre". You really don't mind sounding like an utter twit. And of course savagery and the lack of civilization in general is violent, and your sheer wackdoodle that this needs to be "admitted" is just more of your crazy. It's precisely why sublimating societies are so preferable. And I'll argue against any position supporting termination of the mentally ill; even of you. But in any case, she has not engaged in patent lunacy after patent lunacy in attempting to support the wiping out of humanity nor repeatedly fielded the "dead can't care any more" empty truism for justification for anything, regardless of how badly you wish to hang on to her hem. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Using that particular argument is a tacit admission of defeat for the notion that 'life is a blast' and we're doing people a favour by bringing them into existence. By utilising that argument, you have to admit the fact that life can be bloody, brutal and filled with suffering. So when you use that argument, you're no longer advocating 'good'; you've now walked back your position to advocate 'less bad'. You didn't argue against Falconia when she advocated for the right to die, so clearly you will not always argue against it. You also refrained from arguing against the right to die in Cinemachinery's thread (granted, there wasn't an unambiguous defence of the right to die for the mentally ill, but it was certainly implied). And 'the dead don't care' has not been used as a justification for the right to die. It's simply used to affirm the fact that the action that has been taken has not resulted in any unforeseen harm to which the patient has not consented and were not aware would happen. The only relevant JUSTIFICATION is the request and consent of the patient.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 12, 2017 23:53:39 GMT
tpfkar Denying the right to form contracts with willing parties in order to achieve a desired goal is a method of prevention. But you're also conveniently ignoring the ways that the government aggressively prevents and deters unassisted suicide as well. I didn't consent to be born, but since I have been born and it has been made difficult for me to cease existing, then I'm going to continue using resources and infrastructure, as are all the other suffering individuals who will go on to perpetuate the cycle of suffering because of an onerous imposition that has been forced upon them. No sh!t big thinker. There are many "contracts" between the willing that are prevented for the benefit of all, and that's not even getting into the fundamental point that mentally compromised and "willing" are conflicting ideas. And you have consented to continuing and inflicting pain upon others every single moment you've existed beyond the point you gained consent. And ceasing existence is one of the easiest things done by those who, unlike you, have truly decided that they no longer wish to continue and not just diva around about their great personal psychic pain while fielding patent illogic. 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 13, 2017 0:05:24 GMT
tpfkar Denying the right to form contracts with willing parties in order to achieve a desired goal is a method of prevention. But you're also conveniently ignoring the ways that the government aggressively prevents and deters unassisted suicide as well. I didn't consent to be born, but since I have been born and it has been made difficult for me to cease existing, then I'm going to continue using resources and infrastructure, as are all the other suffering individuals who will go on to perpetuate the cycle of suffering because of an onerous imposition that has been forced upon them. No sh!t big thinker. There are many "contracts" between the willing that are prevented for the benefit of all, and that's not even getting into the fundamental point that mentally compromised and "willing" are conflicting ideas. And you have consented to continuing and inflicting pain upon others every single moment you've existed beyond the point you gained consent. And ceasing existence is one of the easiest things done by those who, unlike you, have truly decided that they no longer wish to continue and not just diva around about their great personal psychic pain while fielding patent illogic. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The contract in question is one that would harm nobody, with the exception of those who feel entitled to someone's suffering, and those who would be aggrieved that they are no longer able to use the law as an instrument with which to impose their religion on unwilling others. Your assertion that anyone with any mental illness cannot consent or be willing is pure bigotry and prejudice. Also, by the standards you're presenting here, someone who was severely mentally ill throughout their lifetime would have no option other than to suffer through a lifetime because at no point did they ever reach the status of being able to consent to end their existence. So what is your answer for those who are effectively 'mentally incompetent' and suffering grievously from early childhood? "Tough noogies"? Their futile and prolonged suffering doesn't matter because it happened to someone else instead of you? And it is a fact that the option of a fail-proof and painless suicide has never been presented to me; and in any case anyone who has committed suicide would need to have suffered sufficiently up to that point (without their consent), and that is still an unacceptable imposition.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 13, 2017 0:07:36 GMT
tpfkar 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. Any assistance of someone else to die (other than an apostate who didn't want to die) would be a criminal offence in Indonesia. If they had the right to die in Indonesia, then they wouldn't have such terribly overcrowded and underfunded asylums with patients who are rotting away in there (literally) in the most desperate of conditions. Nobody's talking of 'throwing away the mentally ill', so that point isn't relevant. I'm talking about giving assistance to die for those who have requested it. Such silly. Just say you're an apostate and you don't want to die. Repost some more from your arty posed torture titillation stash to remind us where you're getting your visualizations. And feeding the mental illness to vein them up to die as opposed to treating them to relieve symptoms is the very definition of throwing away the mentally ill. 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 13, 2017 0:15:54 GMT
tpfkar Any assistance of someone else to die (other than an apostate who didn't want to die) would be a criminal offence in Indonesia. If they had the right to die in Indonesia, then they wouldn't have such terribly overcrowded and underfunded asylums with patients who are rotting away in there (literally) in the most desperate of conditions. Nobody's talking of 'throwing away the mentally ill', so that point isn't relevant. I'm talking about giving assistance to die for those who have requested it. Such silly. Just say you're an apostate and you don't want to die. Repost some more from your arty posed torture titillation stash to remind us where you're getting your visualizations. And feeding the mental illness to vein them up to die as opposed to treating them to relieve symptoms is the very definition of throwing away the mentally ill. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"So all of these mentally ill people (who you allege are incompetent of rational thought) are all meant to independently devise this plan to pretend to be apostates so that the state puts them down (in the most brutal manner imaginable)? And I've never proposed any kind of system where the mentally ill would not be given the right to have their conditions treated, and where they would be in any way coerced into requesting assistance in dying.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 13, 2017 0:18:06 GMT
tpfkar Who cares what you're "aware" of, and who cares how much you psychopaths want to "end suffering" by having everybody offed. The fact is that those that want to feed the illness are more like the Gacys and the Hitlers of the world. Ultimately, badly broken in the head. And of course you label as "progressive" anything that you think furthers your morbid insanity. Even the ludicrousness of using your torture wank porn from places that would likely assist the mentally ill in being killed as anything other than another example of your mental incompetence. Psychopaths either relish the suffering of others, or are indifferent to it. Selfish, greedy and religious primitivists either ignore the suffering of others or downplay the severity of it, in order to justify having their philosophical/religious beliefs enshrined in law. Also, please provide evidence of the Indonesian mental health services completing mercy killings of patients, if you are going to use that as part of your rebuttal. Or wish to end all to relieve their own psychic pain. And your second line describes your morbid faith with high fidelity. And please support your lie that I suggested that the Indonesian mental health services completed "mercy killings" if you want to further demonstrate your borked psychopathy now concerning "mercy". Still waiting on some more of those fine fine images from your collection. 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 13, 2017 14:17:20 GMT
tpfkar Psychopaths either relish the suffering of others, or are indifferent to it. Selfish, greedy and religious primitivists either ignore the suffering of others or downplay the severity of it, in order to justify having their philosophical/religious beliefs enshrined in law. Also, please provide evidence of the Indonesian mental health services completing mercy killings of patients, if you are going to use that as part of your rebuttal. Or wish to end all to relieve their own psychic pain. And your second line describes your morbid faith with high fidelity. And please support your lie that I suggested that the Indonesian mental health services completed "mercy killings" if you want to further demonstrate your borked psychopathy now concerning "mercy". Still waiting on some more of those fine fine images from your collection. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I'm the anti-suffering person, so I can hardly be ignoring suffering when the entire point of antinatalism and right to die is to eradicate suffering. And as for the right to die, I'm not in favour of having my beliefs enshrined into law, I'm only asking for the government to remove religious and philosophical bias from the existing laws on the issue, so that each person has the right to act in accordance with their own philosophical beliefs, so long as that doesn't directly endanger others. And you've previously stated that it's "likely" that the killing of patients is carried out and sanctioned by the Indonesian mental health authorities, without having provided any evidence. To kill another Muslim who wasn't deemed to be an apostate, homosexual or blasphemer would be a grave sin in an Islamic country, and therefore it is extremely unlikely that the government and mental health authorities would countenance any such action.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 13, 2017 14:18:46 GMT
tpfkar Eradicating "all" suffering isn't the goal of the hinged. And since you've been the Trump fan, you tell by what head-slamming reasons he rocked your jollies. And nope, the only option is continuously improving things and not listening to the psychopaths who wish to magnify suffering exponentially by forcing the repeat of the most savage & barbaric extended periods of sentience and pre-sentience. Constantly moaning about consent while they themselve continue to harm countless by contributing to and using the very infrastructure that others have not consented to being damaged by. Why would eradicating only some of the suffering be acceptable, if some are going to have more suffering than they are comfortable with? Why is it acceptable for even 1 person to have to suffer grievously so that 1 billion people can enjoy themselves? I haven't been the Trump 'fan'. I wanted him to win because I thought at least it would be entertaining to watch the reaction to it (and also with the tiny fraction of a hope that Trump would do something reckless which would result in the apocalypse). Also, a Trump victory was arguably a better result for liberal democracy, as it sent the message (hopefully) that complacency and running a campaign entirely on identity politics isn't acceptable from the Democratic Party. My point remains is that if human society was going so swimmingly, nobody would have seen Trump as being the best way of going from strength to strength. And if I'm allowed to easily remove myself from the cycle of harm, then I will do so without delay. As it stands, I live under a government which aggressively proscribes such acts of rebellion against the religious dogma of sanctity of human life. If some want out, they get out. The well and not pathologically narcissistic despondent however strive for better for all. There's no more suffering required for other people beyond just their existing. That's why we keep working on it instead of sending things straight back to manifold worse savagery. Thankfully. And I understand your Trump position. You life trolls are amusing if ultimately reprehensible. And the cherry of you, the constant massive " like the n-word", Graham's being mean to me by not replying, and I'm not going to be harassed by getting replies hypocrite wailer rattling on about identity politics. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 17, 2017 13:11:58 GMT
tpfkar And I'll argue against any position supporting termination of the mentally ill; even of you. But in any case, she has not engaged in patent lunacy after patent lunacy in attempting to support the wiping out of humanity nor repeatedly fielded the "dead can't care any more" empty truism for justification for anything, regardless of how badly you wish to hang on to her hem. You didn't argue against Falconia when she advocated for the right to die, so clearly you will not always argue against it. You also refrained from arguing against the right to die in Cinemachinery's thread (granted, there wasn't an unambiguous defence of the right to die for the mentally ill, but it was certainly implied). And 'the dead don't care' has not been used as a justification for the right to die. It's simply used to affirm the fact that the action that has been taken has not resulted in any unforeseen harm to which the patient has not consented and were not aware would happen. The only relevant JUSTIFICATION is the request and consent of the patient. I don't have to answer every person, never have. The only position I saw her take was in an aside with you where she was (gently) arguing against your position. And again, she hasn't done anything to inspire me to argue against her, very unlike your continuing unscrupulous posting behavior and bizarrely illogically crazy. If she did, I'd probably point it out. And at this point I'll do my best not to contradict her just to make your silly teary self happy. And I love your little bitty "granted". And if the "dead can't hurt" psychopathy wasn't justification you wouldn't have shat it out as response a gazillion times. 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 26, 2017 8:43:13 GMT
tpfkar Why would eradicating only some of the suffering be acceptable, if some are going to have more suffering than they are comfortable with? Why is it acceptable for even 1 person to have to suffer grievously so that 1 billion people can enjoy themselves? I haven't been the Trump 'fan'. I wanted him to win because I thought at least it would be entertaining to watch the reaction to it (and also with the tiny fraction of a hope that Trump would do something reckless which would result in the apocalypse). Also, a Trump victory was arguably a better result for liberal democracy, as it sent the message (hopefully) that complacency and running a campaign entirely on identity politics isn't acceptable from the Democratic Party. My point remains is that if human society was going so swimmingly, nobody would have seen Trump as being the best way of going from strength to strength. And if I'm allowed to easily remove myself from the cycle of harm, then I will do so without delay. As it stands, I live under a government which aggressively proscribes such acts of rebellion against the religious dogma of sanctity of human life. If some want out, they get out. The well and not pathologically narcissistic despondent however strive for better for all. There's no more suffering required for other people beyond just their existing. That's why we keep working on it instead of sending things straight back to manifold worse savagery. Thankfully. And I understand your Trump position. You life trolls are amusing if ultimately reprehensible. And the cherry of you, the constant massive " like the n-word", Graham's being mean to me by not replying, and I'm not going to be harassed by getting replies hypocrite wailer rattling on about identity politics. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Obviously many of them aren't getting out 24 out of every 25 suicide attempts fail (whatever the reason for these failures, this is an indictment on the current system), and many spend their lives constantly yearning for death, but never working up the courage for suicide. Nobody is gainsaying the importance of striving for the betterment of all; but those who were brought into existence without their consent should have as easy a time as possible in unburdening themselves of the unasked-for imposition. Since we know that there are drugs available which can bring about a death in minutes with minimal suffering for the patient, access to these drugs should be a guaranteed right for those who aren't having a good time. And whatever the merits of the eternal recurrence argument, it doesn't justify an individual act of impositon; it's no endorsement of life, it's merely speculating that the current situation might be the lesser evil. I haven't used any identity politics, and I would not have taken issue with graham ceasing to reply (something which has happened to me countless times without further comment from me), if not for the fact that he was crowing about having won the argument despite having to resort to a straw man argument. Yes, but you're calling me a psychopath for espousing a position which is shared by someone who you have effusively praised. If you didn't see that, then I'll paste it, although I resent the fact that you're having me do unnecessary extra work: From page 3 at the link below: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/36056/antinatalism-pessimism?page=3So are you now going to backtrack by saying that Falconia wasn't deserving of your gushing praise; or is a support of the right to die not the exclusive domain of a supervillainous psychopath? "The dead don't care" is not a justification that I have used. The justification that I have used is the same justification for decriminalising homosexual sex. Which is to say, it's that person's life and they should have the right to make choices concerning their body, providing that they are not endangering anyone else. "The dead don't care" only comes into it to illustrate the fact that your purported desire to protect people from harm doesn't make sense as an argument for prohibiting an act that is never experienced or perceived as harmful or regrettable by the patient. The onus should be on the person wanting to restrict rights to provide a sound "justification" for the strictures that they wish to place on the liberties of others. Unfortunately, much like homosexuality, the default position of a society doesn't tend to be one of non-interference, and that's why you and your fellow medievalists still get to dictate that suicide must be performed as a covert and risky solitary act. Different minority groups usually have to fight for the right not to have other people's bigotries, insecurities and fears dictating what they may or may not do with their body and their life.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 26, 2017 17:05:25 GMT
tpfkar <... cycle back up to more hoses of deranged bullsh!it ...> You're gainsaying betterment for all; you advocate death for all. And horrific savagery and barbarism anew and/or cycled continuously instead of continual net sublimation of society, for no reason other than your own (nursed) miserableness, rightist narcissism and basic incompetence. Of course in your psychopathic way is "all dead" is posed as "betterment". And for those minimally competent not deranged or comically narcissistic it is a trivial process to end all - if they have actually decided. Some do find that they enjoy moaning far too much. And it's always a superior position to have the choice as opposed to none. And of course drugs intended to be lethal or bombs or nuke codes should not ever be placed in the hands of deranged psychopaths. You're sodden in identity politics and have engaged in silly rightist imaginings and tactics continuously. And you're a liar again as I've noted your position is psychopathic for an entire list of reasons of your stated beliefs and repeatedly engaged-in tactics; certainly not simply because of one of the manifestations of derangement that you dishonestly clutch to and proffer at the exclusion of the others. As you well know (as you go into inept denial on it in your response), but don't care as you're absolutely unscrupulous like most rightist types, the most noted one of a litany is your continuous use of "dead can't care" as justification. And you could have provided an actual link to the post in question, and it agrees with what I post and outs you as the liar yet again. She's made no psychopathic posts unlike the continuous stream from you, and your idea that I should have to respond to her is as deranged as your classic-right wonderfully entertaining howls of pain at the injustice of being replied to or the oppression of not being replied to or your comical wails that the description of your true behavior is worse than the "n-word" all while you natter on insipidly about other people wanting safe spaces. Or whatever massively hypocritical teary derangement you offer at any given time. And your use of "backtrack" of course is right in line with the truth-on-it's-head babble any right-bot would post. You have either no care of or ability for basic probity nor even sense. People get to make choices for themselves; there's no stopping somebody who's minimally competent and has truly decided that it's time to go. But in our non anarchic-libertarian society we've decided that there are consequences for providing classes of unfledged and/or flat-out deranged with substances/means to harm themselves and others. We value protecting the vulnerable incompetent where possible. And now you're farcically trying to use "homosexuality" as analogy, like any good rightist would. Homosexuality in and of itself is not harmful, of course, if it was then the discussion around it would be entirely different. And when deranged continuously-bawling jonesian/rushian hypocrite psychopaths who careen from worshiping procreation with sappy 70s odes, to worshiping death with a whole new set of psychopathies call me medievalist or some other related nonsense and speak of "bigotries" against their religions, etc., I have to tell you it really hurts my feelings on a scale not experienced since Ada's posts. I'll try to stem the resentment. 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 30, 2017 3:51:51 GMT
tpfkar <... cycle back up to more hoses of deranged bullsh!it ...> You're gainsaying betterment for all; you advocate death for all. And horrific savagery and barbarism anew and/or cycled continuously instead of continual net sublimation of society, for no reason other than your own (nursed) miserableness, rightist narcissism and basic incompetence. Of course in your psychopathic way is "all dead" is posed as "betterment". And for those minimally competent not deranged or comically narcissistic it is a trivial process to end all - if they have actually decided. Some do find that they enjoy moaning far too much. And it's always a superior position to have the choice as opposed to none. And of course drugs intended to be lethal or bombs or nuke codes should not ever be placed in the hands of deranged psychopaths. People get to make choices for themselves; there's no stopping somebody who's minimally competent and has truly decided that it's time to go. But in our non anarchic-libertarian society we've decided that there are consequences for providing classes of unfledged and/or flat-out deranged with substances/means to harm themselves and others. We value protecting the vulnerable incompetent where possible. And now you're farcically trying to use "homosexuality" as analogy, like any good rightist would. Homosexuality in and of itself is not harmful, of course, if it was then the discussion around it would be entirely different. And when deranged continuously-bawling jonesian/rushian hypocrite psychopaths who careen from worshiping procreation with sappy 70s odes, to worshiping death with a whole new set of psychopathies call me medievalist or some other related nonsense and speak of "bigotries" against their religions, etc., I have to tell you it really hurts my feelings on a scale not experienced since Ada's posts. I'll try to stem the resentment. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Extinction would, of course, be the ultimate ideal, given that non existent beings don't have harm that needs to be avoided, or deprivation that needs to be kept at bay. But that doesn't mean that I don't support lesser gradations of 'better' in the meantime. None of the people who never existed feel deprived of the choice of whether or not to live. Therefore, it's only a superior position to have the choice for those who already exist. There's nothing 'rightist' about thinking that people with brown skin shouldn't be treated like children with special needs. Setting a different standard for people based on their skin colour is what is racist. Based on your standards, someone like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins would be more 'right wing' than most of the Republican Party. I haven't come out with any strongly right wing political beliefs. The post in question does not agree with your regressive stance on suicide: " I actually agree with your views on suicide because the odds are against you being sucessful. (The odds are currently 100 and 200 to 1 against). So in the same way it should be one's right to take a pill to prevent menopause (or any suffering) it should be their right to have a safe way to opt out of life.". How could that possibly be interpreted to be in support of the use of coercive suicide prevention, as you espouse? People don't get to freely make the choice of whether or not to die, because such attempts (often violent ones which disable the attempter) often fail. Moreover, I have provided research to show that the likelihood of attempting or committing suicide is not a direct corollary of the desire to die. To commit suicide requires what researchers in the field call "learned fearlessness", or "acquired capability". Simply having a strong desire to die is not sufficient. And what would the harm be from which you strive to protect the 'vulnerable' (term used to stigmatise the unfortunate, when in fact, all sentient living organisms are 'vulnerable' to harm)? If I'm not mistaken, you do not subscribe to the anti-scientific belief that consciousness continues to exist independently of the brain after death, and if the patient requested death at the time and consented to the administration of the medicine, and the medicine killed the patient peacefully without any pain or discomfort, then there's nothing in that process which could have caused the patient to perceive that they were being 'harmed'. Oh, I know. It's "psychopathic" to point out the fact that you're justifying denying people the right to this existence based on a "harm" that even YOU don't really believe exists. I have to let you make arguments based on scientifically debunked and discredited metaphysics in which you yourself do not believe, because otherwise, it's "fake news" [Trump]. If you stuck to your stated views that consciousness ceases after death, then the action of assisting a patient's suicide using medicine would be very much in keeping with the patient's stated goal of avoiding harm. But I have to let that slide (let you use metaphysical arguments that you yourself would scoff at if someone else made that claim in any other context), otherwise I'm a psychopath. At least when campaigners tried to keep homosexuality criminalised, they at least attempted to show what harms could come out of legalising it. Whereas you have merely asserted that such a harm exists, even though such an assertion conflicts with your own previously stated beliefs supporting a materialistic explanation for consciousness ('free will' notwithstanding). So really, you want to keep those people in suffering because the thought of allowing them to be unburdened of the suffering makes you uncomfortable. Either that, or you hold dissonant and irreconcilable views on materialism which vary depending on subject.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 30, 2017 3:56:00 GMT
tpfkar What other than your pathological religious leanings leads you to clutch desperately, given extended time scales, that the recurrence of sentience is not a foregone conclusion? And you should definitely stop aggressing against those who have not consented to the damage you inflict on them daily by your use and, gasp!, contribution to infrastructure. It's wunnerful to be given the superior choice of continuing existence even if only to use it for continuously divaing on about their suffering, or the alternate option of choosing to opt out at any time. It's either something that is not guaranteed to happen, or something that will probably only happen after humanity has gone extinct in any event. There's no reason to believe that the continuation of the human species would help to ameliorate the brutality of the new form of life anyway; because they would have to be at the stage that we were at in order to be amenable to influence from us. For example, we can't stop lions from mauling other life forms, because a lion cannot be reasoned with about empathy and compassion for other life forms. The only thing that we could do would be to eradicate lions, but then there would probably be the eventual recurrence of another savage life-form which inflicted terrible suffering on other sentient beings. Pure silly convenient bullsh!t. If humanity is knocked out of alpha status long enough then other species will just sooner evolve as the overwhelming constraining influence of humans would be absent. Perhaps you can argue against abiogenesis next. And we're doing perfectly well at keeping the mauling lions in check. Hopefully we'll rise enough to give them room to survive with vigor, but that surely means removing many stressors that would otherwise have accelerated some evolutionary change, or at least significantly altering evolutionary paths that would occur in our absence. Definitely still much preferred to intentionally regressing to indiscriminate hunter-libertarians again with the much larger likelihood of consuming other species wholesale. It matters not what pure crazy rejects. By your "logic" there have been no provisions for people not to make zyogotes nor reject morbid crazy. In any case, all of the previous are easily done, although the zygote thing might be the trickiest. You could go live in an arctic bus or in more temperate woods and get et by a barr, for instance, or do a Kaczynski - oh crap, you can't use the post or other infrastructure. Seriously, they've even made movies and the like, so you might come around to believing via the same path you came to worship procreation. And you just pointed out how you value your life above it's cessation. Yippee ki-yay!, glad you've explicitly chosen. Although I hate to tell you, but the best way you could promote antinatalism would be to careen back to your previous 70's sap ode-ing to making babies. 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 30, 2017 8:43:30 GMT
tpfkar It's either something that is not guaranteed to happen, or something that will probably only happen after humanity has gone extinct in any event. There's no reason to believe that the continuation of the human species would help to ameliorate the brutality of the new form of life anyway; because they would have to be at the stage that we were at in order to be amenable to influence from us. For example, we can't stop lions from mauling other life forms, because a lion cannot be reasoned with about empathy and compassion for other life forms. The only thing that we could do would be to eradicate lions, but then there would probably be the eventual recurrence of another savage life-form which inflicted terrible suffering on other sentient beings. Pure silly convenient bullsh!t. If humanity is knocked out of alpha status long enough then other species will just sooner evolve as the overwhelming constraining influence of humans would be absent. Perhaps you can argue against abiogenesis next. And we're doing perfectly well at keeping the mauling lions in check. Hopefully we'll rise enough to give them room to survive with vigor, but that surely means removing many stressors that would otherwise have accelerated some evolutionary change, or at least significantly altering evolutionary paths that would occur in our absence. Definitely still much preferred to intentionally regressing to indiscriminate hunter-libertarians again with the much larger likelihood of consuming other species wholesale. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I'm not in favour of only humanity being made extinct. If life manages to rise from the ashes again to brutalise those who have the capability of suffering, then that is something that was inevitably going to happen regardless of whether or not antinatalism was adopted. That doesn't mean that victims should be forcibly inserted into the thresher, and even if you disagree with this, the fact that you're using this argument (and acknowledging how brutally harmful sentient experience can be) doesn't really speak volumes in favour of what a 'gift' life is to begin with. to hav So because I had my life forced upon me without consent, this means that I should be the one to have to experience acute discomfort, pain and risk in order to rid the society of the problem that they imposed upon me? Are you always in favour of transferring the responsibility onto victims for the transgressions committed against them?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 30, 2017 11:49:32 GMT
tpfkar Or wish to end all to relieve their own psychic pain. And your second line describes your morbid faith with high fidelity. And please support your lie that I suggested that the Indonesian mental health services completed "mercy killings" if you want to further demonstrate your borked psychopathy now concerning "mercy". Still waiting on some more of those fine fine images from your collection. I'm the anti-suffering person, so I can hardly be ignoring suffering when the entire point of antinatalism and right to die is to eradicate suffering. And as for the right to die, I'm not in favour of having my beliefs enshrined into law, I'm only asking for the government to remove religious and philosophical bias from the existing laws on the issue, so that each person has the right to act in accordance with their own philosophical beliefs, so long as that doesn't directly endanger others. You're the psychopath who believes the existence of any suffering at all justifies the destruction of all sentience, and who is apathetic to all of the untempered barbarity and raw suffering that such faith as policy would unnecessarily revisit all over again. And people do have the right to act according to their beliefs, just not have enshrined in law their narcissistic demands to have spoon-fed to them what they could trivially accomplish if they had any mental wits, all at the cost of great harm to countless vulnerable. "Killing" isn't "mercy killing" and doesn't have to always be by direct action. Regardless, they're much closer to those who via neglect, arrogance and religious psycopathy want to end all suffering by having all be dead. 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 Dec 1, 2017 6:45:24 GMT
tpfkar I'm the anti-suffering person, so I can hardly be ignoring suffering when the entire point of antinatalism and right to die is to eradicate suffering. And as for the right to die, I'm not in favour of having my beliefs enshrined into law, I'm only asking for the government to remove religious and philosophical bias from the existing laws on the issue, so that each person has the right to act in accordance with their own philosophical beliefs, so long as that doesn't directly endanger others. You're the psychopath who believes the existence of any suffering at all justifies the destruction of all sentience, and who is apathetic to all of the untempered barbarity and raw suffering that such faith as policy would unnecessarily revisit all over again. And people do have the right to act according to their beliefs, just not have enshrined in law their narcissistic demands to have spoon-fed to them what they could trivially accomplish if they had any mental wits, all at the cost of great harm to countless vulnerable. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Wanting to see the end of a harmful and unnecessary cycle of harm and brutality is not psychopathy. The cycle of life and the evolutionary process literally feed off of suffering. If suffering did not exist, it would be doubtful that life would still exist, or that evolution could be successful. And we're still more or less in a situation of untempered barbarity and raw suffering. What I want is for those who have the mental capacity to reject suffering to refuse to contribute to the process by bringing new harmable sentient life into such a dangerous existence. People do not have the right to suicide in any meaningful sense. Not only is assisted suicide illegal, but suicide itself is de facto illegal across the world (i.e. the police, health authorities and ordinary citizens have unlimited powers with which to prevent suicide, even in cases where the act isn't technically illegal), and de jure illegal in many countries in the world. And I'm going to ask you what peer reviewed scientific research bolsters your belief that people who have died are experiencing a state of "great harm". Oh, I know. It's "psychopathic" to point out the fact that you're justifying denying people the right to this existence based on a "harm" that even YOU don't really believe exists. I have to let you make arguments based on scientifically debunked and discredited metaphysics in which you yourself do not believe, because otherwise, it's "fake news" [Trump]. If you stuck to your stated views that consciousness ceases after death, then the action of assisting a patient's suicide using medicine would be very much in keeping with the patient's stated goal of avoiding harm. But I have to let that slide (let you use metaphysical arguments that you yourself would scoff at if someone else made that claim in any other context), otherwise I'm a psychopath. If it's not mercy killing and if people die by neglect rather than by direct action, then it has nothing to do with the right to die. So the point stands; the only nations that support the right to die in any meaningful sense are those who are amongst the most secular nations in the world, with the highest quality of healthcare and overall standard of living. The patients who die by assisted suicide are those who had access to the highest possible standard of health care (including mental health care) prior to being permitted to gracefully exit a futile existence of oppressive and unrelenting pain and misery.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 1, 2017 12:54:25 GMT
tpfkar Such silly. Just say you're an apostate and you don't want to die. Repost some more from your arty posed torture titillation stash to remind us where you're getting your visualizations. And feeding the mental illness to vein them up to die as opposed to treating them to relieve symptoms is the very definition of throwing away the mentally ill. So all of these mentally ill people (who you allege are incompetent of rational thought) are all meant to independently devise this plan to pretend to be apostates so that the state puts them down (in the most brutal manner imaginable)? And I've never proposed any kind of system where the mentally ill would not be given the right to have their conditions treated, and where they would be in any way coerced into requesting assistance in dying. That would be yet another example of your fine reasoning in action. No, as many times stated, if they can't do that or the analogous non-dystopian hospital act of behaving rational, then we just can't trust their output when they want to effect suicide by psychiatrist. And I never suggested that you proposed taking away any treatment nor instituting any overt coercion, so feel free to rattle off an infinite list of such unposed irrelevancies. Although your frequent crutch of "dead can't suffer" obliterates any significance to "coercion". 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 Dec 1, 2017 17:05:01 GMT
tpfkar So all of these mentally ill people (who you allege are incompetent of rational thought) are all meant to independently devise this plan to pretend to be apostates so that the state puts them down (in the most brutal manner imaginable)? And I've never proposed any kind of system where the mentally ill would not be given the right to have their conditions treated, and where they would be in any way coerced into requesting assistance in dying. That would be yet another example of your fine reasoning in action. No, as many times stated, if they can't do that or the analogous non-dystopian hospital act of behaving rational, then we just can't trust their output when they want to effect suicide by psychiatrist. And I never suggested that you proposed taking away any treatment nor instituting any overt coercion, so feel free to rattle off an infinite list of such unposed irrelevancies. Although your frequent crutch of "dead can't suffer" obliterates any significance to "coercion". On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Why would anyone request suicide if they were not suffering grievously? If they are suffering chronically and irremediably, is not a rational response to that to wish to end the suffering? And is it not true that without conscious experience, one does not possess that necessary prerequisite for suffering or regretting any decisions made? "Life" isn't an objective good in and of itself, and cannot be argued as such without a religious agenda (either veiled or overt). Therefore it's completely rational to wish to end the inconvenience of life in order to be rid of the unwanted suffering.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 1, 2017 17:08:29 GMT
tpfkar Dude, what horsesh!t. You were crying out again about how I'd used soembody else's argument, like 1, somebody owns arguments, and 2, like who holds arguments has any undelying connection to their validity. More pure gushy inanity from you. And "incongruous to your oeuvre". You really don't mind sounding like an utter twit. And of course savagery and the lack of civilization in general is violent, and your sheer wackdoodle that this needs to be "admitted" is just more of your crazy. It's precisely why sublimating societies are so preferable. Using that particular argument is a tacit admission of defeat for the notion that 'life is a blast' and we're doing people a favour by bringing them into existence. By utilising that argument, you have to admit the fact that life can be bloody, brutal and filled with suffering. So when you use that argument, you're no longer advocating 'good'; you've now walked back your position to advocate 'less bad'. Life is a blast when done right, and we're doing better. Still superior to have the choice of it and easy opt-out, if one really wants to go. Your "tacit" line is just more "tacit" admission of your pure silly. There simply is no "admission" of the obvious and never contested. Uncivilized life can be a real sh!t proposition, whether it's the first time coming about or purposely revisited by lunatic psychopaths. But you might have a chance to have some great even in such an environment, and it's still far preferable to have the easily discarded option. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|