|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 22:23:14 GMT
tpfkar 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. 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. Your pretense that tying to treat people fairly is somehow treating your bootylicious "brown people" as "infants" (your continuous love-hate epithet) is your Britain first made up shrill crap. It's just not wanting for people to be grouped by the "probabilistic" and "50 years from now" guys, who worship the bugaboo instead of just going with the rule of law and overall policy applied to all. in any case, that still leaves your bawly rightist gross hypocrisy. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 23:07:22 GMT
tpfkar 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. Your pretense that tying to treat people fairly is somehow treating your bootylicious "brown people" as "infants" (your continuous love-hate epithet) is your Britain first made up shrill crap. It's just not wanting for people to be grouped by the "probabilistic" and "50 years from now" guys, who worship the bugaboo instead of just going with the rule of law and overall policy applied to all. in any case, that still leaves your bawly rightist gross hypocrisy. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.Your whataboutery concerning Christianity is not fair and equal treatment. All I've done is exposed the fact that you're lending greater weight to the shortcomings of Christianity than to the shortcomings of Islam; so that Christian bakers wanting to refuse service for a gay marriage becomes equivalent to the criminalisation of homosexuality in Islamic nations, etc. And ridiculing casual liberal Christians mercilessly for the beliefs that they vaguely subscribe to, whilst not having so much as a word of mockery for devout conservative Muslims whose entire life revolves around their religion. Unfortunately, it is not possible to vet each and every individual for their beliefs and whether or not they are likely to try and use the political machinery to impose their beliefs on others who do not share those same beliefs. So all we actually have to go on are probabilities.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 23:09:30 GMT
tpfkar 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? It agrees with how I characterized my position / your position / Falconia's position and puts your gushy bullsh!t on the matter to easy lie. The psychopath notation was never simply about disagreement on whether the mentally ill should be facilitated in ending their lives. I can and do fundamentally disagree with countless non-psychopaths. The fact that you keep rattling on pretending you can't see the list of morbid crazy pointed just highlights your crass dishonesty / rabid derangement all the more. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 23:21:57 GMT
tpfkar Your pretense that tying to treat people fairly is somehow treating your bootylicious "brown people" as "infants" (your continuous love-hate epithet) is your Britain first made up shrill crap. It's just not wanting for people to be grouped by the "probabilistic" and "50 years from now" guys, who worship the bugaboo instead of just going with the rule of law and overall policy applied to all. in any case, that still leaves your bawly rightist gross hypocrisy. Your whataboutery concerning Christianity is not fair and equal treatment. All I've done is exposed the fact that you're lending greater weight to the shortcomings of Christianity than to the shortcomings of Islam; so that Christian bakers wanting to refuse service for a gay marriage becomes equivalent to the criminalisation of homosexuality in Islamic nations, etc. And ridiculing casual liberal Christians mercilessly for the beliefs that they vaguely subscribe to, whilst not having so much as a word of mockery for devout conservative Muslims whose entire life revolves around their religion. Unfortunately, it is not possible to vet each and every individual for their beliefs and whether or not they are likely to try and use the political machinery to impose their beliefs on others who do not share those same beliefs. So all we actually have to go on are probabilities. Your bugabooaboutary and fondness for rightist themes and memes as well as the "worse elsewhere" patent right-crap tells the real tale. Gays being thrown off roofs or having their assh!les probed doesn't in any way mitigate much less make any "equivalence" to other figurative assh!les trying to make mischief in the U.S. If your preciousness-bugaboo cognitive dissonance (or woodshed consonance) furry skins try to institute different commercial treatment based off of race, sexual orientation and the like, then of course I'd condemn it whole-heartedly. And as I don't black-mark Christians wholesale for that nor would I do that either with others elsewhere. I ridicule any arrogant theists be they Christian, Islamic or just morbid death worshipers, just as anybody who wants to discuss theism should be prepared for the gaping flaws to be pointed out. The bottom line is that you're ever the easy liar. Not only have I said that the case is equally so for Islam, I've posted it in heated discussions with at least one true Muslim. You just shat out whatever stupid you "feel", Ada-like. Maybe you can get some kind of Minority Report thing going? Don't want to guess in what kind of cell they'd put you. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2017 23:36:26 GMT
tpfkar Your whataboutery concerning Christianity is not fair and equal treatment. All I've done is exposed the fact that you're lending greater weight to the shortcomings of Christianity than to the shortcomings of Islam; so that Christian bakers wanting to refuse service for a gay marriage becomes equivalent to the criminalisation of homosexuality in Islamic nations, etc. And ridiculing casual liberal Christians mercilessly for the beliefs that they vaguely subscribe to, whilst not having so much as a word of mockery for devout conservative Muslims whose entire life revolves around their religion. Unfortunately, it is not possible to vet each and every individual for their beliefs and whether or not they are likely to try and use the political machinery to impose their beliefs on others who do not share those same beliefs. So all we actually have to go on are probabilities. Your bugabooaboutary and fondness for rightist themes and memes as well as the "worse elsewhere" patent right-crap tells the real tale. Gays being thrown off roofs or having their assh!les probed doesn't in any way mitigate much less make any "equivalence" to other figurative assh!les trying to make mischief in the U.S. If your preciousness-bugaboo cognitive dissonance (or woodshed consonance) furry skins try to institute different commercial treatment based off of race, sexual orientation and the like, then of course I'd condemn it whole-heartedly. And as I don't black-mark Christians wholesale for that nor would I do that either with others elsewhere. I ridicule any arrogant theists be they Christian, Islamic or just morbid death worshipers, just as anybody who wants to discuss theism should be prepared for the gaping flaws to be pointed out. The bottom line is that you're ever the easy liar. Not only have I said that the case is equally so for Islam, I've posted it in heated discussions with at least one true Muslim. You just shat out whatever stupid you "feel", Ada-like. Maybe you can get some kind of Minority Report thing going? Don't want to guess in what kind of cell they'd put you. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.You've ridiculed Christian rituals and practices, even when there weren't any Christians to provoke it. I've yet to see you ridicule the Islamic prayer rituals or the long white robes, flappy pajama pants and doylie hats that conservative Muslim men wear, though. And no, I don't want to treat individuals poorly because of their ethnic background. But flooding Europe with immigrants from Islamic countries is certain to lead to long-term problems for those who cherish secular liberties such as freedom of speech, gender equality, bodily autonomy and LGBT rights. Personally, I realise that it's nobody's fault that they were born in a horrible third world country and then thoroughly brainwashed with atavistic religion. I have full sympathy for what it is that makes those people what they are and feel sympathy for their plight. I understand what has caused those people to hold strong convictions that are inimical to my own values, but that doesn't mean that I advocating making myself and others more vulnerable to being oppressed by a large political bloc consisting of those people.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 23:38:38 GMT
tpfkar 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. 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. Of course they do if they have their wits. If not, then in a non anarchist-libertarian we step in to keep them from harming themselves. Of course there are many reasons attempt suicide, from being distraught over something, acting rashly, lashing out, crying for attention, narcissistic illogic, etc., and even rational thinking. And in the case of the only one that society shouldn't step in on, successful suicide is a trivially easy action once that person has actually decided on that course. Any "learned fearlessness" and "acquired capability" is work to overcome their doubts about it and their ties to living. And is "vulnerable" now just like the n-word? By "vulnerable is meant those not mature or mentally capable enough to be trusted with lethal means. If they were they would trivially handle it without any possible involvement from anyone else. If they can't, they greater society is in no position to feed their malady or callously risk / take advantage of them. And of course if you sneak up behind somebody who just lost a loved one and put a pullet through their brain then of course there's nothing in that process which could have caused the patient to perceive that they were being 'harmed'. What's psychopathic is wanting to end all humanity, and short of that get as many people offed as possible, favor politicians that you hope will start apocalypses, etc., etc., constantly field the most absurd of fallacies, illogic and just plain schizophrenic thinking, all due to your own narcissistic nursing of your constantly teary miserableness. And I don't know what your babble about metaphysics and debunked you were jabbering on about. Was this more of the stuff like the "tacit admission" of things never contested or posed naked wank pics of brown people to depict dystopian asylums for absolutely no logical effect, or are you charting completely new paths of derangement? And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 4, 2017 23:55:11 GMT
tpfkar Your bugabooaboutary and fondness for rightist themes and memes as well as the "worse elsewhere" patent right-crap tells the real tale. Gays being thrown off roofs or having their assh!les probed doesn't in any way mitigate much less make any "equivalence" to other figurative assh!les trying to make mischief in the U.S. If your preciousness-bugaboo cognitive dissonance (or woodshed consonance) furry skins try to institute different commercial treatment based off of race, sexual orientation and the like, then of course I'd condemn it whole-heartedly. And as I don't black-mark Christians wholesale for that nor would I do that either with others elsewhere. I ridicule any arrogant theists be they Christian, Islamic or just morbid death worshipers, just as anybody who wants to discuss theism should be prepared for the gaping flaws to be pointed out. The bottom line is that you're ever the easy liar. Not only have I said that the case is equally so for Islam, I've posted it in heated discussions with at least one true Muslim. You just shat out whatever stupid you "feel", Ada-like. Maybe you can get some kind of Minority Report thing going? Don't want to guess in what kind of cell they'd put you. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.You've ridiculed Christian rituals and practices, even when there weren't any Christians to provoke it. I've yet to see you ridicule the Islamic prayer rituals or the long white robes, flappy pajama pants and doylie hats that conservative Muslim men wear, though. Show me where. You're just the ever-free liar. And I don't care about the trivial things you mention, so you can keep your garment obsessions all for yourself. It's certain! So instead of having policies and laws that apply to all, you condemn the group, of what you like to call "fuzzy brown people." And constantly emit shrill rightist dishonest memes as well as lie prodigiously. 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 5, 2017 9:06:44 GMT
tpfkar 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. Of course they do if they have their wits. If not, then in a non anarchist-libertarian we step in to keep them from harming themselves. Of course there are many reasons attempt suicide, from being distraught over something, acting rashly, lashing out, crying for attention, narcissistic illogic, etc., and even rational thinking. And in the case of the only one that society shouldn't step in on, successful suicide is a trivially easy action once that person has actually decided on that course. Any "learned fearlessness" and "acquired capability" is work to overcome their doubts about it and their ties to living. And is "vulnerable" now just like the n-word? By "vulnerable is meant those not mature or mentally capable enough to be trusted with lethal means. If they were they would trivially handle it without any possible involvement from anyone else. If they can't, they greater society is in no position to feed their malady or callously risk / take advantage of them. And of course if you sneak up behind somebody who just lost a loved one and put a pullet through their brain then of course there's nothing in that process which could have caused the patient to perceive that they were being 'harmed'. What's psychopathic is wanting to end all humanity, and short of that get as many people offed as possible, favor politicians that you hope will start apocalypses, etc., etc., constantly field the most absurd of fallacies, illogic and just plain schizophrenic thinking, all due to your own narcissistic nursing of your constantly teary miserableness. And I don't know what your babble about metaphysics and debunked you were jabbering on about. Was this more of the stuff like the "tacit admission" of things never contested or posed naked wank pics of brown people to depict dystopian asylums for absolutely no logical effect, or are you charting completely new paths of derangement? And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.Even those who don't have their wits ought to have the right to avoid harm, even if they are not competent to bring this about without the involvement of another person or organisation. And I've asked you several times what harm you're trying to prevent from happening, and first you came up with 'they'd regret having died if they hadn't have died', then when pressed further, you stated that the harm would be to those who were sad that the person had died. Learned fearlessness and acquired capability has nothing to do with rational desire for life, and everything to do with ability to overcome raw instinct. It's the same with how some people can never overcome vertigo or arachnophobia. Greater society absolutely ought to be in the position of helping people to avoid further harm, especially if nobody can come up with a coherent argument concerning the harm that we would be exposing them to if we respected their wishes (so that would rule out 'they might regret having died if they hadn't have died', or anything that only considers the emotional harm caused to others as being counter-arguments). Killing someone for no productive reason without their consent is a completely different moral kettle of fish. Society has to be based on the fact that people have the right to life, and that implies that they should also have the right not to live, if that is their choice. If people have those rights, then it is society's role to actively facilitate those rights, including law enforcement to ensure that people aren't murdered without their consent, but also euthanasia and assisted suicide to ensure that anyone who wants to exercise their right not to live will be able to pursue that right without any risk of failing to secure that right and making things worse for themselves. The metaphysics to which I was referring is the idea that people who have died can be harmed. The only way that you can say that assisted suicide is harmful is if the person's consciousness continues to exist in order to feel harmed by the fact that they have died.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 5, 2017 13:05:30 GMT
tpfkar 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. Why would anyone cut off their own tongue and penis? And all your "ifs" are all the more gravely uncertain to impossible to answer for the deranged by whatever cause. And yes, if you put a bullet in the back of someone's head on the subway or launch the nukes worldwide, then no suffering and regret can be had among the dead. Satisfaction/enjoyment is just as much an "objective good" as suffering is an "objective bad". Life to facilitate all of the great it has to offer is an "objective good" many times more than the psychopathic extinguishing of life in order to prevent the possibility of any suffering could even approach being an "objective good". "Enjoy the ride while you have it and try to make things ever better for everybody" is religion only in the minds of the cracked who pray to their Objective God and hear back "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 13:13:26 GMT
tpfkar 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. Why would anyone cut off their own tongue and penis? And all your "ifs" are all the more gravely uncertain to impossible to answer for the deranged by whatever cause. And yes, if you put a bullet in the back of someone's head on the subway or launch the nukes worldwide, then no suffering and regret can be had among the dead. Satisfaction/enjoyment is just as much an "objective good" as suffering is an "objective bad". Life to facilitate all of the great it has to offer is an "objective good" many times more than the psychopathic extinguishing of life in order to prevent the possibility of any suffering could even approach being an "objective good". "Enjoy the ride while you have it and try to make things ever better for everybody" is religion only in the minds of the cracked who pray to their Objective God and hear back "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.If someone wanted to cut off their tongue or penis, then you could interrogate their reasoning to find out what has lead them to want to. It may not be rational to seek out deliberate harm to onesself that one would have to endure for the rest of their lives. On the other hand "I want to escape my suffering, and dying is the only guaranteed way to do that" is rational regardless of who states it. A rational and logical statement should not be dismissed just because of the identity of who speaks it - to do so would be prejudice and bigotry of the most odious order. I never denied that enjoyment is not something worth pursuing for those who are already alive. But it is nothing more than a solution to the problem of vulnerability (to harm) which was created when the person came into existence. The moral thing to do would not to be to create someone who will be vulnerable to harm, when doing so will not be solving a problem for the as-yet non-existent person.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 5, 2017 13:22:09 GMT
tpfkar Of course they do if they have their wits. If not, then in a non anarchist-libertarian we step in to keep them from harming themselves. Of course there are many reasons attempt suicide, from being distraught over something, acting rashly, lashing out, crying for attention, narcissistic illogic, etc., and even rational thinking. And in the case of the only one that society shouldn't step in on, successful suicide is a trivially easy action once that person has actually decided on that course. Any "learned fearlessness" and "acquired capability" is work to overcome their doubts about it and their ties to living. And is "vulnerable" now just like the n-word? By "vulnerable is meant those not mature or mentally capable enough to be trusted with lethal means. If they were they would trivially handle it without any possible involvement from anyone else. If they can't, they greater society is in no position to feed their malady or callously risk / take advantage of them. And of course if you sneak up behind somebody who just lost a loved one and put a pullet through their brain then of course there's nothing in that process which could have caused the patient to perceive that they were being 'harmed'. What's psychopathic is wanting to end all humanity, and short of that get as many people offed as possible, favor politicians that you hope will start apocalypses, etc., etc., constantly field the most absurd of fallacies, illogic and just plain schizophrenic thinking, all due to your own narcissistic nursing of your constantly teary miserableness. And I don't know what your babble about metaphysics and debunked you were jabbering on about. Was this more of the stuff like the "tacit admission" of things never contested or posed naked wank pics of brown people to depict dystopian asylums for absolutely no logical effect, or are you charting completely new paths of derangement? Even those who don't have their wits ought to have the right to avoid harm, even if they are not competent to bring this about without the involvement of another person or organisation. And I've asked you several times what harm you're trying to prevent from happening, and first you came up with 'they'd regret having died if they hadn't have died', then when pressed further, you stated that the harm would be to those who were sad that the person had died. Learned fearlessness and acquired capability has nothing to do with rational desire for life, and everything to do with ability to overcome raw instinct. It's the same with how some people can never overcome vertigo or arachnophobia. Greater society absolutely ought to be in the position of helping people to avoid further harm, especially if nobody can come up with a coherent argument concerning the harm that we would be exposing them to if we respected their wishes (so that would rule out 'they might regret having died if they hadn't have died', or anything that only considers the emotional harm caused to others as being counter-arguments). Killing someone for no productive reason without their consent is a completely different moral kettle of fish. Society has to be based on the fact that people have the right to life, and that implies that they should also have the right not to live, if that is their choice. If people have those rights, then it is society's role to actively facilitate those rights, including law enforcement to ensure that people aren't murdered without their consent, but also euthanasia and assisted suicide to ensure that anyone who wants to exercise their right not to live will be able to pursue that right without any risk of failing to secure that right and making things worse for themselves. The metaphysics to which I was referring is the idea that people who have died can be harmed. The only way that you can say that assisted suicide is harmful is if the person's consciousness continues to exist in order to feel harmed by the fact that they have died. Sure, the patently deranged can make up any out-the-morbid-backside definition for "harm" that fits their custom slot for their humanity-ending psychopathic business. Those whom are not mentally compromised can easily accomplish the trivial task once actually decided. Those not mentally sound should never be pushed to their doom regardless as to whether somebody cynically, freakishely, Arlons the word "harm". The "metaphysics" of "people who are dead cannot be harmed" as justification for anything is the realm of mad supervillain psychopaths. Killing a deranged person who would not want to have died sans the derangement distorting their thought processes is harmful on it's face, and your bizarre fancies of consciousness after death only work within the context of your religious beliefs of the Great Objective and with your longing for an "Antinatalist" Rapture. 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 5, 2017 13:32:23 GMT
tpfkar Even those who don't have their wits ought to have the right to avoid harm, even if they are not competent to bring this about without the involvement of another person or organisation. And I've asked you several times what harm you're trying to prevent from happening, and first you came up with 'they'd regret having died if they hadn't have died', then when pressed further, you stated that the harm would be to those who were sad that the person had died. Learned fearlessness and acquired capability has nothing to do with rational desire for life, and everything to do with ability to overcome raw instinct. It's the same with how some people can never overcome vertigo or arachnophobia. Greater society absolutely ought to be in the position of helping people to avoid further harm, especially if nobody can come up with a coherent argument concerning the harm that we would be exposing them to if we respected their wishes (so that would rule out 'they might regret having died if they hadn't have died', or anything that only considers the emotional harm caused to others as being counter-arguments). Killing someone for no productive reason without their consent is a completely different moral kettle of fish. Society has to be based on the fact that people have the right to life, and that implies that they should also have the right not to live, if that is their choice. If people have those rights, then it is society's role to actively facilitate those rights, including law enforcement to ensure that people aren't murdered without their consent, but also euthanasia and assisted suicide to ensure that anyone who wants to exercise their right not to live will be able to pursue that right without any risk of failing to secure that right and making things worse for themselves. The metaphysics to which I was referring is the idea that people who have died can be harmed. The only way that you can say that assisted suicide is harmful is if the person's consciousness continues to exist in order to feel harmed by the fact that they have died. Sure, the patently deranged can make up any out-the-morbid-backside definition for "harm" that fits their custom slot for their humanity-ending psychopathic business. Those whom are not mentally compromised can easily accomplish the trivial task once actually decided. Those not mentally sound should never be pushed to their doom regardless as to whether somebody cynically, freakishely, Arlons the word "harm". The "metaphysics" of "people who are dead cannot be harmed" as justification for anything is the realm of mad supervillain psychopaths. Killing a deranged person who would not want to have died sans the derangement distorting their thought processes is harmful on it's face, and your bizarre fancies of consciousness after death only work within the context of your religious beliefs of the Great Objective and with your longing for an "Antinatalist" Rapture. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Harm is anything to which the experiencer assigns a negative value. Wanting to escape to a state whererin one no longer has any vulnerability to harm is perfectly rational, regardless of whomever is expressing this desire. "The dead cannot be harmed" is not the justification for the right to die, the patient's own considered request to die is the justification. As is the fact that if there is a right to life, then this implies that there should be the right not to live (in the sense of a right that is actively protected and facilitated - and certainly not aggressively proscribed - by society, and not in the intangible and non-sensical sense in which you mean the term).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 5, 2017 13:33:03 GMT
tpfkar 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. 100% is never an never will be the standard, nor even desirable, as your "position" starkly illustrates. And what people don't "miss" when "they're" dead or never-existed is yet another utter irrelevance. Those that are born by far prefer to live and in fact fight the end vigorously for as long as is possible. And those who "attempted suicide" and failed needed help with their problems and certainly not state-sponsored destruction, as the incompetence in their act (if suicide was indeed the intention) made plain. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2017 13:50:52 GMT
tpfkar 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. 100% is never an never will be the standard, nor even desirable, as your "position" starkly illustrates. And what people don't "miss" when "they're" dead or never-existed is yet another utter irrelevance. Those that are born by far prefer to live and in fact fight the end vigorously for as long as is possible. And those who "attempted suicide" and failed needed help with their problems and certainly not state-sponsored destruction, as the incompetence in their act (if suicide was indeed the intention) made plain. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.If 100% is not the only acceptable standard, then that just means that someone is going to have to suffer as collateral damage for the pleasure of others. Someone whose wellbeing is equally as valuable as yours, and therefore someone who is the exact equivalent of you. You wouldn't want to be the 1 person tortured for a lifetime in order that 99 people could have a good time, so why should you be able to nominate some other randomly unfortunate person for that fate? The fact that people don't miss anything when they are dead or did not exist to begin with is absolutely relevant to both the causes of antinatalism and the right to die. Those who have attempted suicide are likely to have sought help for their problems before hand and found that there are no realistic prospects of the situation improving to their satisfaction. As it can never be irrational to desire an escape fro an intractably harmful situation, the state should respect their right to escape harm through a peaceful death.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 5, 2017 13:51:46 GMT
tpfkar Sure, the patently deranged can make up any out-the-morbid-backside definition for "harm" that fits their custom slot for their humanity-ending psychopathic business. Those whom are not mentally compromised can easily accomplish the trivial task once actually decided. Those not mentally sound should never be pushed to their doom regardless as to whether somebody cynically, freakishely, Arlons the word "harm". The "metaphysics" of "people who are dead cannot be harmed" as justification for anything is the realm of mad supervillain psychopaths. Killing a deranged person who would not want to have died sans the derangement distorting their thought processes is harmful on it's face, and your bizarre fancies of consciousness after death only work within the context of your religious beliefs of the Great Objective and with your longing for an "Antinatalist" Rapture. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"Harm is anything to which the experiencer assigns a negative value. Wanting to escape to a state whererin one no longer has any vulnerability to harm is perfectly rational, regardless of whomever is expressing this desire. "The dead cannot be harmed" is not the justification for the right to die, the patient's own considered request to die is the justification. As is the fact that if there is a right to life, then this implies that there should be the right not to live (in the sense of a right that is actively protected and facilitated - and certainly not aggressively proscribed - by society, and not in the intangible and non-sensical sense in which you mean the term). Sure, and the guy experienced "negative value" for both his tongue and his penis. At least halfway similar to you, amiright! The "dead cannot be harmed" has been the realm of religious psychopaths for millennia. The deranged and otherwise mentally incompetent do not have the "right" for society- assistance in their destruction, your latest "implication" demonstrating the point all the more vividly. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|