Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 4:42:50 GMT
tpfkar 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*****"When you create sentient life, you don't only create the possibility that some people will have a "blast", you also create the certainty of deprivation. Whereas in a universe with no sentient life, although nobody is having a blast, nobody is being deprived of the "blast" either. And nobody misses having the choice of whether or not to continue with their existence in the hopes of having a "blast", or withdraws from it in deprivation. Does a dust bunny under the bed feel deprived of the pleasures of life, or feel like its missing out on at least having choices? And those who have attempted suicide and severely disabled themselves didn't discard their "gift" easily, and now have no option of ever being unburdened until such time as even the advances of future medicine can no longer protract their life against their will any longer.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 15:10:38 GMT
tpfkar And they profusely lied without restraint much like is your and the rest of the rightists constant tactic. I've listed countless harms of both your morbidly deranged faith backed by raw illogic, your wonderfully lugubrious if wildly narcissistic self-pity, as well as "dead can't care" patent psychopathy and "they were offed happy about getting offed, no harm no foul, no matter how deranged they were at the time" libertarian nutbaggery. And I am most pleased that you find my views to be irreconcilable with whatever bangs around in your noggin', as I would be most traumatized to learn that wasn't the case. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 16:30:32 GMT
tpfkar And they profusely lied without restraint much like is your and the rest of the rightists constant tactic. I've listed countless harms of both your morbidly deranged faith backed by raw illogic, your wonderfully lugubrious if wildly narcissistic self-pity, as well as "dead can't care" patent psychopathy and "they were offed happy about getting offed, no harm no foul, no matter how deranged they were at the time" libertarian nutbaggery. And I am most pleased that you find my views to be irreconcilable with whatever bangs around in your noggin', as I would be most traumatized to learn that wasn't the case. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.You are lying without restraint about the supposed harms which you claim would result from policies like those I've suggested (with the safeguards that I've suggested) being implicated. And you've stigmatised the people that you supposedly wish to protect with your calumnies about their capacity to make reasoned choices in order to justify an injustice that is being perpetrated against those people for the sake of your quasi-Catholic ideals. You have never listed a harm that is experienced by the person, or at least certainly nothing that is experienced as being a worse harm than what they are trying to escape when they request assistance to die. You aren't wanting to protect anyone from harm, you're wanting to protect an idea. Laws should exist to protect people, not ideas. Your views aren't merely irreconcilable with mine, they are irreconcilable with the materialistic beliefs that you've espoused in the context of other contexts (specifically the fact that consciousness cannot exist independently of a living brain).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 16:48:12 GMT
tpfkar And they profusely lied without restraint much like is your and the rest of the rightists constant tactic. I've listed countless harms of both your morbidly deranged faith backed by raw illogic, your wonderfully lugubrious if wildly narcissistic self-pity, as well as "dead can't care" patent psychopathy and "they were offed happy about getting offed, no harm no foul, no matter how deranged they were at the time" libertarian nutbaggery. And I am most pleased that you find my views to be irreconcilable with whatever bangs around in your noggin', as I would be most traumatized to learn that wasn't the case. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.You are lying without restraint about the supposed harms which you claim would result from policies like those I've suggested (with the safeguards that I've suggested) being implicated. And you've stigmatised the people that you supposedly wish to protect with your calumnies about their capacity to make reasoned choices in order to justify an injustice that is being perpetrated against those people for the sake of your quasi-Catholic ideals. You have never listed a harm that is experienced by the person, or at least certainly nothing that is experienced as being a worse harm than what they are trying to escape when they request assistance to die. You aren't wanting to protect anyone from harm, you're wanting to protect an idea. Laws should exist to protect people, not ideas. Your views aren't merely irreconcilable with mine, they are irreconcilable with the materialistic beliefs that you've espoused in the context of other contexts (specifically the fact that consciousness cannot exist independently of a living brain). Nope - killing the mentally ill based on their derangement is great harm, built into the normal among us. As for the rank lying, see nearly every one of your posts, from you wanting suicide pills in pharmacies to hoping that Trump starts an apocalypse, or even just the brownies and making up completely twitted insipidities about boring and incapable and whatever rightist gush you can't contain at any given moment. Your lugubrious narcissistic take-them-all-with-me motivations for all of this schizophrenic nonsense is clear. There is no stigmatization with describing the illness of the ill -but still more great irony from the addled conservative frequently cackling about safe spaces while howling at at posters who upend your morbid illogic by replying to you, and crying just as rabidly when they cease responding to your derangements. And your people vs. ideas and list nonsense of course is more sideways meaninglessness; we don't give blades to toddlers or the intoxicated, nor explosives to mad bombers nor hopeful world-enders specifically to protect the dangerously naive/deranged from themselves and the sane/mature from them. My beliefs have absolutely nada to do with the fact that our bodies are all we are. You, however worship some sacred (although pathological) Other making rules. 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 4, 2017 20:19:06 GMT
tpfkar You are lying without restraint about the supposed harms which you claim would result from policies like those I've suggested (with the safeguards that I've suggested) being implicated. And you've stigmatised the people that you supposedly wish to protect with your calumnies about their capacity to make reasoned choices in order to justify an injustice that is being perpetrated against those people for the sake of your quasi-Catholic ideals. You have never listed a harm that is experienced by the person, or at least certainly nothing that is experienced as being a worse harm than what they are trying to escape when they request assistance to die. You aren't wanting to protect anyone from harm, you're wanting to protect an idea. Laws should exist to protect people, not ideas. Your views aren't merely irreconcilable with mine, they are irreconcilable with the materialistic beliefs that you've espoused in the context of other contexts (specifically the fact that consciousness cannot exist independently of a living brain). Nope - killing the mentally ill based on their derangement is great harm, built into the normal among us. As for the rank lying, see nearly every one of your posts, from you wanting suicide pills in pharmacies to hoping that Trump starts an apocalypse, or even just the brownies and making up completely twitted insipidities about boring and incapable and whatever rightist gush you can't contain at any given moment. Your lugubrious narcissistic take-them-all-with-me motivations for all of this schizophrenic nonsense is clear. There is no stigmatization with describing the illness of the ill -but still more great irony from the addled conservative frequently cackling about safe spaces while howling at at posters who upend your morbid illogic by replying to you, and crying just as rabidly when they cease responding to your derangements. And your people vs. ideas and list nonsense of course is more sideways meaninglessness; we don't give blades to toddlers or the intoxicated, nor explosives to mad bombers nor hopeful world-enders specifically to protect the dangerously naive/deranged from themselves and the sane/mature from them. My beliefs have absolutely nada to do with the fact that our bodies are all we are. You, however worship some sacred (although pathological) Other making rules. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Tell me what the "harm" is from the perspective of the patient receiving the assistance to die, not from the perspective of an external observer. Let us suppose that the patient is someone who has suffered from long term debilitating depression, has tried many different treatments, and has finally received the go-ahead for assisted dying. At what point does the patient realise that they aren't being helped to end their long years of suffering, but they are being 'harmed'. Describe the thought process, by putting yourself in the patient's position. This should be easy for you, given the many times that you have vaunted your own ability to feel empathy. Giving a knife to a toddler would be a bad idea because they would likely end up experiencing severe pain, which unlike a peaceful requested and consented-to death, would be a very harmful and perhaps traumatising event. We don't give explosives to bombers, because likely they are going to cause a great deal of grievous harm to many people, for no justifiable reason. That's a different scenario from a reasoned antinatalist political leader having the option to release some kind of toxin in to the atmosphere which would quickly and painlessly kill off all sentient beings in order to prevent those sentient beings from imposing a harmful and risky proposition on others. I agree with your final sentence here (apart from the fact that you're mendaciously lying about my qualified beliefs concerning morality). Your beliefs on assisted dying are completely divorced from your stated materialistic views concerning consciousness (your supernatural belief in free will notwithstanding, of course).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 20:21:40 GMT
tpfkar 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. Right, because you're a nutcase hoping your preferred leader initiates the apocalypse. Much like other ultra-religious looking for their blessed state. And you support repeated cycles of savagery and barbarity as life transitions to sentience. And none of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great opportunity of choice. To have the easy choice of A or B will always be superior to only A or only B. For the sane. 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 4, 2017 20:31:25 GMT
tpfkar 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. Right, because you're a nutcase hoping your preferred leader initiates the apocalypse. Much like other ultra-religious looking for their blessed state. And you support repeated cycles of savagery and barbarity as life transitions to sentience. And none of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great opportunity of choice. To have the easy choice of A or B will always be superior to only A or only B. For the sane. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Organic life is always going to be a Sisyphean exercise in futility, and that's what we have at the moment. Why? Because the threat of harm and suffering is at the very root of our nature. As in you always have to be actively doing something in order to prevent yourself from being harmed or suffering in some way. You have to find something to eat, less you experience hunger and waste away. You have to shelter yourself, lest you experience the discomfort of cold and contract hypothermia. You have to create social bonds because otherwise you are hardwired to experience loneliness and isolation, and also you will otherwise have nobody to help you when you need it. In other words, the boulder NEVER makes it to the top of the hill, no matter how long we push, because for the boulder to get to the top of the hill, we'd have to no longer have the threat of harm forcing us to do things in order to prevent our suffering. If the whole process starts again after we're gone, then that's an inevitability in any case, and doesn't take away from our obligation not to deliberately impose this state on others who have not had the opportunity to consent. None of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great "opportunity" to constantly have to do things to stave off harmful sensations, and that is a meaningless truism. We're not benefitting the non-existent, because as long as we don't bring them into existence, they don't exist. We would simply be refraining from unilaterally visiting an unneeded and unwanted imposition on someone who, by our actions, would come into existence, and would be vulnerable to harm.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 20:42:53 GMT
tpfkar Nope - killing the mentally ill based on their derangement is great harm, built into the normal among us. As for the rank lying, see nearly every one of your posts, from you wanting suicide pills in pharmacies to hoping that Trump starts an apocalypse, or even just the brownies and making up completely twitted insipidities about boring and incapable and whatever rightist gush you can't contain at any given moment. Your lugubrious narcissistic take-them-all-with-me motivations for all of this schizophrenic nonsense is clear. There is no stigmatization with describing the illness of the ill -but still more great irony from the addled conservative frequently cackling about safe spaces while howling at at posters who upend your morbid illogic by replying to you, and crying just as rabidly when they cease responding to your derangements. And your people vs. ideas and list nonsense of course is more sideways meaninglessness; we don't give blades to toddlers or the intoxicated, nor explosives to mad bombers nor hopeful world-enders specifically to protect the dangerously naive/deranged from themselves and the sane/mature from them. My beliefs have absolutely nada to do with the fact that our bodies are all we are. You, however worship some sacred (although pathological) Other making rules. Tell me what the "harm" is from the perspective of the patient receiving the assistance to die, not from the perspective of an external observer. Let us suppose that the patient is someone who has suffered from long term debilitating depression, has tried many different treatments, and has finally received the go-ahead for assisted dying. At what point does the patient realise that they aren't being helped to end their long years of suffering, but they are being 'harmed'. Describe the thought process, by putting yourself in the patient's position. This should be easy for you, given the many times that you have vaunted your own ability to feel empathy. Giving a knife to a toddler would be a bad idea because they would likely end up experiencing severe pain, which unlike a peaceful requested and consented-to death, would be a very harmful and perhaps traumatising event. We don't give explosives to bombers, because likely they are going to cause a great deal of grievous harm to many people, for no justifiable reason. That's a different scenario from a reasoned antinatalist political leader having the option to release some kind of toxin in to the atmosphere which would quickly and painlessly kill off all sentient beings in order to prevent those sentient beings from imposing a harmful and risky proposition on others. I agree with your final sentence here (apart from the fact that you're mendaciously lying about my qualified beliefs concerning morality). Your beliefs on assisted dying are completely divorced from your stated materialistic views concerning consciousness (your supernatural belief in free will notwithstanding, of course). The harm of unnecessary death in that if they are treated and get their wits back they would regret, as pointed out a bajillion times, regardless of the "once they're gone they can't care" psychopathy. And let's not assume your slanted made up cases. If they are competent enough to decide then they are competent enough to get the trivial done without roiling up concerns if they actually want it. Otherwise we don't listen to the naive or the deranged when they want to hurt themselves or others. And just change knife to a hand grenade, or lethal candy, or whatever, Mr. Belabor the point with irrelevant quibbles. As for the "reasoned antinatalist" who hopes Trump starts an apocalypse for his own personal joyous Rapture also visited upon mankind, I think toxins in the atmosphere are a severe no-no, at least according to the somewhat hinged. My beliefs about the purposely endangering the mentally compromised is certainly in no way divorced from materialism as all moral concerns those concerns are orthogonal to each other. Your constant suckling of theism by any other name is however completely simpatico with your wholly extreme belief of the week, month, year or whatever it is. 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 4, 2017 21:11:46 GMT
tpfkar Tell me what the "harm" is from the perspective of the patient receiving the assistance to die, not from the perspective of an external observer. Let us suppose that the patient is someone who has suffered from long term debilitating depression, has tried many different treatments, and has finally received the go-ahead for assisted dying. At what point does the patient realise that they aren't being helped to end their long years of suffering, but they are being 'harmed'. Describe the thought process, by putting yourself in the patient's position. This should be easy for you, given the many times that you have vaunted your own ability to feel empathy. Giving a knife to a toddler would be a bad idea because they would likely end up experiencing severe pain, which unlike a peaceful requested and consented-to death, would be a very harmful and perhaps traumatising event. We don't give explosives to bombers, because likely they are going to cause a great deal of grievous harm to many people, for no justifiable reason. That's a different scenario from a reasoned antinatalist political leader having the option to release some kind of toxin in to the atmosphere which would quickly and painlessly kill off all sentient beings in order to prevent those sentient beings from imposing a harmful and risky proposition on others. I agree with your final sentence here (apart from the fact that you're mendaciously lying about my qualified beliefs concerning morality). Your beliefs on assisted dying are completely divorced from your stated materialistic views concerning consciousness (your supernatural belief in free will notwithstanding, of course). The harm of unnecessary death in that if they are treated and get their wits back they would regret, as pointed out a bajillion times, regardless of the "once they're gone they can't care" psychopathy. And let's not assume your slanted made up cases. If they are competent enough to decide then they are competent enough to get the trivial done without roiling up concerns if they actually want it. Otherwise we don't listen to the naive or the deranged when they want to hurt themselves or others. And just change knife to a hand grenade, or lethal candy, or whatever, Mr. Belabor the point with irrelevant quibbles. As for the "reasoned antinatalist" who hopes Trump starts an apocalypse for his own personal joyous Rapture also visited upon mankind, I think toxins in the atmosphere are a severe no-no, at least according to the somewhat hinged. My beliefs about the purposely endangering the mentally compromised is certainly in no way divorced from materialism as all moral concerns those concerns are orthogonal to each other. Your constant suckling of theism by any other name is however completely simpatico with your wholly extreme belief of the week, month, year or whatever it is. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"So the best that you can come up with is that they would regret having died... if they hadn't have died?! And the many people who have failed in their suicide attempts did not find it a trivial task, for whatever reason (even supposing this was fully or in part attributable to their own incompetence or rashness). Anything that would cause unintentional harm to the child is something that should be avoided, regardless of what the hazard is. Your desire to restrict or prohibit assisted suicide is completely and irreconcilably divorced from materialism, because the best that you can come up with is that if the person hadn't died, they would regret having died. Or if they had died, they wouldn't get to be pleased that they hadn't died (but wouldn't feel deprived of the chance to have recovered) on the off chance that they happened to be one of the minority who would have recovered from their refractive mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 21:14:41 GMT
tpfkar Organic life is always going to be a Sisyphean exercise in futility, and that's what we have at the moment. Why? Because the threat of harm and suffering is at the very root of our nature. As in you always have to be actively doing something in order to prevent yourself from being harmed or suffering in some way. You have to find something to eat, less you experience hunger and waste away. You have to shelter yourself, lest you experience the discomfort of cold and contract hypothermia. You have to create social bonds because otherwise you are hardwired to experience loneliness and isolation, and also you will otherwise have nobody to help you when you need it. In other words, the boulder NEVER makes it to the top of the hill, no matter how long we push, because for the boulder to get to the top of the hill, we'd have to no longer have the threat of harm forcing us to do things in order to prevent our suffering. If the whole process starts again after we're gone, then that's an inevitability in any case, and doesn't take away from our obligation not to deliberately impose this state on others who have not had the opportunity to consent. None of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great "opportunity" to constantly have to do things to stave off harmful sensations, and that is a meaningless truism. We're not benefitting the non-existent, because as long as we don't bring them into existence, they don't exist. We would simply be refraining from unilaterally visiting an unneeded and unwanted imposition on someone who, by our actions, would come into existence, and would be vulnerable to harm. Nope, life is a blast and getting better all the time. You don't have to be doing anything. You have that much much superior option to having no option. Getting some religious boulder up some hill is never the point. Making things ever better and more enjoyable is. And of course none of the people who never existed feel any angst at the prospect either. And your "truism" is so only for the borked of mind. "Staving off harms" is built into the system that lets us keep sublimating. An integral part of this blast. "Unneeded" is another of your out the wahoo value assertions. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 21:23:25 GMT
tpfkar The harm of unnecessary death in that if they are treated and get their wits back they would regret, as pointed out a bajillion times, regardless of the "once they're gone they can't care" psychopathy. And let's not assume your slanted made up cases. If they are competent enough to decide then they are competent enough to get the trivial done without roiling up concerns if they actually want it. Otherwise we don't listen to the naive or the deranged when they want to hurt themselves or others. And just change knife to a hand grenade, or lethal candy, or whatever, Mr. Belabor the point with irrelevant quibbles. As for the "reasoned antinatalist" who hopes Trump starts an apocalypse for his own personal joyous Rapture also visited upon mankind, I think toxins in the atmosphere are a severe no-no, at least according to the somewhat hinged. My beliefs about the purposely endangering the mentally compromised is certainly in no way divorced from materialism as all moral concerns those concerns are orthogonal to each other. Your constant suckling of theism by any other name is however completely simpatico with your wholly extreme belief of the week, month, year or whatever it is. So the best that you can come up with is that they would regret having died... if they hadn't have died?! And the many people who have failed in their suicide attempts did not find it a trivial task, for whatever reason (even supposing this was fully or in part attributable to their own incompetence or rashness). Anything that would cause unintentional harm to the child is something that should be avoided, regardless of what the hazard is. Your desire to restrict or prohibit assisted suicide is completely and irreconcilably divorced from materialism, because the best that you can come up with is that if the person hadn't died, they would regret having died. Or if they had died, they wouldn't get to be pleased that they hadn't died (but wouldn't feel deprived of the chance to have recovered) on the off chance that they happened to be one of the minority who would have recovered from their refractive mental illness. Thanks for the smiley window into your head! I definitely get that you don't get that normal humans regret people having unnecessarily died. And what "many people found" in no way contradicts that it is trivially easy to accomplish if one has one's wits and has actually decided. Just another other-right fielder from you. Your assertions are completely simpatico with the materialism that includes those with fundamentally broken reasoning glands. The reasoanably-hinged don't want to see the compromised harm themselves due to their broken-down thinking, as we can't know what they'd want if they were not deranged by their illness. It's the way normal non-psycopathically empathetic humans roll. 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 4, 2017 21:44:15 GMT
tpfkar Organic life is always going to be a Sisyphean exercise in futility, and that's what we have at the moment. Why? Because the threat of harm and suffering is at the very root of our nature. As in you always have to be actively doing something in order to prevent yourself from being harmed or suffering in some way. You have to find something to eat, less you experience hunger and waste away. You have to shelter yourself, lest you experience the discomfort of cold and contract hypothermia. You have to create social bonds because otherwise you are hardwired to experience loneliness and isolation, and also you will otherwise have nobody to help you when you need it. In other words, the boulder NEVER makes it to the top of the hill, no matter how long we push, because for the boulder to get to the top of the hill, we'd have to no longer have the threat of harm forcing us to do things in order to prevent our suffering. If the whole process starts again after we're gone, then that's an inevitability in any case, and doesn't take away from our obligation not to deliberately impose this state on others who have not had the opportunity to consent. None of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great "opportunity" to constantly have to do things to stave off harmful sensations, and that is a meaningless truism. We're not benefitting the non-existent, because as long as we don't bring them into existence, they don't exist. We would simply be refraining from unilaterally visiting an unneeded and unwanted imposition on someone who, by our actions, would come into existence, and would be vulnerable to harm. Nope, life is a blast and getting better all the time. You don't have to be doing anything. You have that much much superior option to having no option. Getting some religious boulder up some hill is never the point. Making things ever better and more enjoyable is. And of course none of the people who never existed feel and angst at the prospect either. And your "truism" is so only for the borked of mind. "Staving off harms" is built into the system that lets us keep sublimating. An integral part of this blast. "Unneeded" is another of your out the wahoo value assertions. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I do have to be doing things in order to stave off suffering. I need to go to work in order that I can eat and keep myself sheltered. I need to be careful with my hygiene in order to avoid diseases. I need to go to the doctor if I have an illness, and so on so forth. And if I want to get myself off the perpetually moving treadmill, then I'm the one who is responsible for ensuring that, as far as reasonably possible, I reduce the risks of failing in a suicide attempt, and I am the one who will need to bear any attendant pain or discomfort. And you've just been using the Sisyphean boulder argument in an attempt to further your own cause, and are now dismissing it as irrelevant when it is used to rebut your points. The fact that the boulder never reaches the top of the hill means that everyone who was dragged into this without their consent will need to keep pushing against the boulder, ultimately to no avail other than to keep from being crushed by the same, until the species goes extinct. Staving off harms is built into evolution, and since there is no objective authority who deemed that evolution or life is a benison in and of itself, then it behooves us to consider not only the benefits, but the costs (i.e. the beings of equivalent moral value who are being tortured in order to keep the treadmill running). I never denied the fact that other people regret the fact that people died. I asked you to point out what was the harm to the person who is assisted to die, after you have repeatedly claimed that the rationale for your views on the issue is to protect the vulnerable from harm. If we're basing it on what other people want, then each person exists in a state of slavery, in which they have an obligation to continue with a painful existence for someone else's sake. And the failure of the majority to complete suicide (whether or not this could be partially or wholly attributed to their own incompetence) reflects the low probability of success in suicide. Again you have said that you don't want the "compromised to harm themselves", even after I've pressed you on this and you've only been able to come up with 'they would regret having died if they hadn't have died' or 'other people will be sad to see them die'. So are you going to continue to refuse to admit that your policy actually protects an idea rather than a person?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 21:44:53 GMT
tpfkar 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. Right, because you're a nutcase hoping your preferred leader initiates the apocalypse. Much like other ultra-religious looking for their blessed state. And you support repeated cycles of savagery and barbarity as life transitions to sentience. And none of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great opportunity of choice. To have the easy choice of A or B will always be superior to only A or only B. For the sane. 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 4, 2017 21:53:00 GMT
tpfkar 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. Right, because you're a nutcase hoping your preferred leader initiates the apocalypse. Much like other ultra-religious looking for their blessed state. And you support repeated cycles of savagery and barbarity as life transitions to sentience. And none of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great opportunity of choice. To have the easy choice of A or B will always be superior to only A or only B. For the sane. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I don't support initiating the repeated cycles of savagery or barbarity, but I don't support the idea that we should actively creating victims for the sake of this purely conjectural cause. If it happens, then it will likely have absolutely nothing to do with the success or otherwise of antinatalist philosophy. And choice is only desirable for those who have the capacity of choice, and for whom the choice is necessitated in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 21:55:16 GMT
tpfkar Nope, life is a blast and getting better all the time. You don't have to be doing anything. You have that much much superior option to having no option. Getting some religious boulder up some hill is never the point. Making things ever better and more enjoyable is. And of course none of the people who never existed feel and angst at the prospect either. And your "truism" is so only for the borked of mind. "Staving off harms" is built into the system that lets us keep sublimating. An integral part of this blast. "Unneeded" is another of your out the wahoo value assertions. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I do have to be doing things in order to stave off suffering. I need to go to work in order that I can eat and keep myself sheltered. I need to be careful with my hygiene in order to avoid diseases. I need to go to the doctor if I have an illness, and so on so forth. And if I want to get myself off the perpetually moving treadmill, then I'm the one who is responsible for ensuring that, as far as reasonably possible, I reduce the risks of failing in a suicide attempt, and I am the one who will need to bear any attendant pain or discomfort. And you've just been using the Sisyphean boulder argument in an attempt to further your own cause, and are now dismissing it as irrelevant when it is used to rebut your points. The fact that the boulder never reaches the top of the hill means that everyone who was dragged into this without their consent will need to keep pushing against the boulder, ultimately to no avail other than to keep from being crushed by the same, until the species goes extinct. Staving off harms is built into evolution, and since there is no objective authority who deemed that evolution or life is a benison in and of itself, then it behooves us to consider not only the benefits, but the costs (i.e. the beings of equivalent moral value who are being tortured in order to keep the treadmill running). I never denied the fact that other people regret the fact that people died. I asked you to point out what was the harm to the person who is assisted to die, after you have repeatedly claimed that the rationale for your views on the issue is to protect the vulnerable from harm. If we're basing it on what other people want, then each person exists in a state of slavery, in which they have an obligation to continue with a painful existence for someone else's sake. And the failure of the majority to complete suicide (whether or not this could be partially or wholly attributed to their own incompetence) reflects the low probability of success in suicide. Again you have said that you don't want the "compromised to harm themselves", even after I've pressed you on this and you've only been able to come up with 'they would regret having died if they hadn't have died' or 'other people will be sad to see them die'. So are you going to continue to refuse to admit that your policy actually protects an idea rather than a person? You don't "need" to do anything. You choose to. To stave off an effect, of course you can curtail the purported cause. Brilliant stuff! Your broken lugubriousness is something you can choose to deal with or not, but there's no Sacred Boulder you Objectively have to struggle with, no matter how many times you whine about it. And offing deranged people is a harm as we are acting in ways that are likely in contravention to their wants outside of their derangement. It is empathy as to what they'd want, you slavery, much like your n-word comical shrillness notwithstanding. And keeping intoxicated/deranged/immature people from harming themselves in their intoxicated/deranged/immature state is protecting the intoxicated/deranged/immature, not simply some "idea". Nor is it a "negative value state" or whatever silly yap you want to throw out. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 21:59:06 GMT
tpfkar Right, because you're a nutcase hoping your preferred leader initiates the apocalypse. Much like other ultra-religious looking for their blessed state. And you support repeated cycles of savagery and barbarity as life transitions to sentience. And none of the people who never existed feel any desire not to have the great opportunity of choice. To have the easy choice of A or B will always be superior to only A or only B. For the sane. I don't support initiating the repeated cycles of savagery or barbarity, but I don't support the idea that we should actively creating victims for the sake of this purely conjectural cause. If it happens, then it will likely have absolutely nothing to do with the success or otherwise of antinatalist philosophy. And choice is only desirable for those who have the capacity of choice, and for whom the choice is necessitated in the first place. Sure, you do, you advocate wiping out the human race and more, just for sentience to crawl back again right through its savage barbaric phases. It is part and parcel and inseparable unless your theist beliefs include that we are somehow "special" in this regard. And "necessitated" is another value assertion to which I give you back "gifted". Choice vs. none is always the "superior value state". ™
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 4, 2017 22:04:00 GMT
I do have to be doing things in order to stave off suffering. I need to go to work in order that I can eat and keep myself sheltered. I need to be careful with my hygiene in order to avoid diseases. I need to go to the doctor if I have an illness, and so on so forth. And if I want to get myself off the perpetually moving treadmill, then I'm the one who is responsible for ensuring that, as far as reasonably possible, I reduce the risks of failing in a suicide attempt, and I am the one who will need to bear any attendant pain or discomfort. And you've just been using the Sisyphean boulder argument in an attempt to further your own cause, and are now dismissing it as irrelevant when it is used to rebut your points. The fact that the boulder never reaches the top of the hill means that everyone who was dragged into this without their consent will need to keep pushing against the boulder, ultimately to no avail other than to keep from being crushed by the same, until the species goes extinct. Staving off harms is built into evolution, and since there is no objective authority who deemed that evolution or life is a benison in and of itself, then it behooves us to consider not only the benefits, but the costs (i.e. the beings of equivalent moral value who are being tortured in order to keep the treadmill running). I never denied the fact that other people regret the fact that people died. I asked you to point out what was the harm to the person who is assisted to die, after you have repeatedly claimed that the rationale for your views on the issue is to protect the vulnerable from harm. If we're basing it on what other people want, then each person exists in a state of slavery, in which they have an obligation to continue with a painful existence for someone else's sake. And the failure of the majority to complete suicide (whether or not this could be partially or wholly attributed to their own incompetence) reflects the low probability of success in suicide. Again you have said that you don't want the "compromised to harm themselves", even after I've pressed you on this and you've only been able to come up with 'they would regret having died if they hadn't have died' or 'other people will be sad to see them die'. So are you going to continue to refuse to admit that your policy actually protects an idea rather than a person? You don't "need" to do anything. You choose to. To stave off an effect, of course you can curtail the purported cause. Brilliant stuff! Your broken lugubriousness is something you can choose to deal with or not, but there's no Sacred Boulder you Objectively have to struggle with, no matter how many times you whine about it. And offing deranged people is a harm as we are acting in ways that are likely in contravention to their wants outside of their derangement. It is empathy as to what they'd want, you slavery, much like your n-word comical shrillness notwithstanding. And keeping intoxicated/deranged/immature people from harming themselves in their intoxicated/deranged/immature state is protecting the intoxicated/deranged/immature, not simply some "idea". Nor is it a "negative value state" or whatever silly yap you want to throw out. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Except the society in which I live places the burden of risk, pain, etc on me if I want to end the condition which was imposed upon me without my consent. And there are many people who haven't got the minimum capability required for suicide, either due to physical inability or mental deficiency, or both. So now you're saying that assisting people in dying who want to die is harming them because if they didn't want to die, then they wouldn't want to die. And still won't admit to your circular reasoning. By that 'reasoning', we shouldn't give casts to people with broken legs, because if they didn't have a broken leg, then they wouldn't want the thing stuck in a cast. I've asked you many times to tell me why the condition of being peacefully assisted to die upon their request is more harmful than having their request refused and having to continue to endure whatever suffering had led them to wanting to kill themselves. All you've been able to come up with is 'they would regret having died if they hadn't have died', and 'other people would be sad if they died'. Because if you know that consciousness ceases upon death, then this forecloses on any possibility of the person being harmed by the treatment, and you know that if someone has requested the action and the action itself is painless and peaceful, they aren't feeling harmed by the fact that their request was respected before they died, and the assisted suicide is doing nothing more than allowing them to avoid the harm that they have asked to be helped to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 22:04:37 GMT
tpfkar 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. Of course they aren't, but that is the Jonesian/Milo line, of course. There's no "different" standard with not treating people ahead of time based on extremist aspects of others that look like them, nor making up rightist imagined crap , nor constantly emitting high-hypocritical rightist "safe-space" howls/bawls. Just because you combine rightist with Angels Trumpet doesn't make it any less red meat "brown"-taunting Trump-lovin' right. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 22:11:27 GMT
tpfkar You don't "need" to do anything. You choose to. To stave off an effect, of course you can curtail the purported cause. Brilliant stuff! Your broken lugubriousness is something you can choose to deal with or not, but there's no Sacred Boulder you Objectively have to struggle with, no matter how many times you whine about it. And offing deranged people is a harm as we are acting in ways that are likely in contravention to their wants outside of their derangement. It is empathy as to what they'd want, you slavery, much like your n-word comical shrillness notwithstanding. And keeping intoxicated/deranged/immature people from harming themselves in their intoxicated/deranged/immature state is protecting the intoxicated/deranged/immature, not simply some "idea". Nor is it a "negative value state" or whatever silly yap you want to throw out. Except the society in which I live places the burden of risk, pain, etc on me if I want to end the condition which was imposed upon me without my consent. And there are many people who haven't got the minimum capability required for suicide, either due to physical inability or mental deficiency, or both. So now you're saying that assisting people in dying who want to die is harming them because if they didn't want to die, then they wouldn't want to die. And still won't admit to your circular reasoning. By that 'reasoning', we shouldn't give casts to people with broken legs, because if they didn't have a broken leg, then they wouldn't want the thing stuck in a cast. I've asked you many times to tell me why the condition of being peacefully assisted to die upon their request is more harmful than having their request refused and having to continue to endure whatever suffering had led them to wanting to kill themselves. All you've been able to come up with is 'they would regret having died if they hadn't have died', and 'other people would be sad if they died'. Because if you know that consciousness ceases upon death, then this forecloses on any possibility of the person being harmed by the treatment, and you know that if someone has requested the action and the action itself is painless and peaceful, they aren't feeling harmed by the fact that their request was respected before they died, and the assisted suicide is doing nothing more than allowing them to avoid the harm that they have asked to be helped to avoid. Nope, you just are. Society not allowing you to demand coddling for your morbidity is not "imposed" on you. And no condition was imposed on you by society but by a couple of germ cells that decided to make a zygote. And you keep repeating your head-broken mantra. There's just no circular reasoning to wanting to keep the mentally compromised and other vulnerable from harming themselves. It's just not the psychopathic, "well you feel like going out the high-rise window, here let me push you". "Consciousness ceases upon death" is every reason to live it up while you can, not continuously wet your pants about what you can resolve yourself if you truly want to. 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 4, 2017 22:12:33 GMT
tpfkar 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. Of course they aren't, but that is the Jonesian/Milo line, of course. There's no "different" standard with not treating people ahead of time based on extremist aspects of others that look like them, nor making up rightist imagined crap , nor constantly emitting high-hypocritical rightist "safe-space" howls/bawls. Just because you combine rightist with Angels Trumpet doesn't make it any less red meat "brown"-taunting Trump-lovin' right. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.The "brown people" retorts are aimed at people like you who treat brown skinned people like infants; not at actual brown skinned people. If 100,000 people emigrate from Pakistan, then probablistically some of them are going to be very fine people with commendably liberal views. But a much larger number of them are going to have very conservative religious views that they are likely to want to impose on the host population, compared to the same number of indigenous western Europeans. If it were the other way round, and European nations were the religious basket cases and the Asians were leading the world in secularism, then I'd be calling for much larger scale immigration, so that the "brown people" could come and civilise us. And I don't think that the fact that Europeans are more civilised than Pakistanis has anything to do with skin colour.
|
|