|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2018 0:20:29 GMT
I believe we're seeing why this board doesn't deserve to live.... IMHO Mic condemned this Board to a 'cycle of imposition' of his whacko personal insecurities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 0:46:36 GMT
Nope, not the non existence. There is no imposition upon them whilst they do not exist. When they are born, they will have to endure the consequences of the imposition. Not necessarily, in fact not at all except for rare cases like yourself. An overwhelming majority of sentient creatures especially humans are happy to have been born and content with their lives, its variety and ups and downs and they always have the option of terminating it if this is ,rarely ,not the case. There is no cycle of imposition. It is your opinion only. Many don't have any option to terminate (the severely disabled, for whom you've undoubtedly no sympathy), and many are functionally unable to do so, either for reasons of instinct, lack of access to any kind of reliable method, holding the sincere belief that committing suicide would only lead to an eternity of torture in hell, feeling obligated to have to endure their suffering in order to spare the suffering of others, etc. And even in the scenario where anybody could commit suicide, there's still the imposition of the suffering that would have lead them up to the point of wanting to die, and people like you who believe that the onus should be on them to solve a problem that someone else created without permission.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 0:51:11 GMT
tpfkar Well the very article that you posted admits that the practice of euthanasia enjoys widespread support in Belgium. And the example that it gives of a 'botched euthanasia' doesn't sound particularly egregious, given that the woman receiving the assistance had advanced state dementia and probably had little idea what was going on, so naturally she was going to be feeling frightened by the procedure which she'd given advanced consent to. And the other case mentioned is just one where he wants to be able to determine how much suffering other people ought to be forced to endure (which would be suffering without limit, as I understand that the columnist is intractably opposed to assisted dying under any circumstances). It's not at all shocking that it is unpopular with Christian opinion columnists like Mr Lane. Although article mentions that even Catholic organisations in Belgium are getting on board with rationality. Being killed instantly is mistakenly classified as 'harm' because most humans are instinctually terrified of death and really do imagine that it's somehow frightening not to exist any more, and that they experience their own non existence. Anyway, I suspect you'll be hearing more about antinatalism within the next 20 years, because this is a phenomenon that is growing. Climate change issues are introducing a lot of people to entry level antinatalism. All you're saying with your last line is that they wouldn't want to die if it weren't for the things that are causing them to want to die. The 'illness' is not occupation by demons, it is part of the individual, and it can never be irrational to wish to escape from harm, when there are no apparent negative consequences to face for doing so. Sure, and holding people down and killing them as they're fighting against it. And of course that doesn't sound too "egregious" to you. Much less than nuking the world. And if it was probably this, and probably that, why did the regulating board have such a problem with it, and why a problem with many others? And ahhh, what's your oft-wailed phrase? To the man! And how about a source on his religion? And I'm good with you babbling that being killed instantly in an accident or vaporized by a madman is not harm. Make it part of your regular repertoire. And antinatalists aren't generally crazy whacks who want to nuke the world or institute jackboot thugism. But you hold onto your dreams, you do have a lot of them. And no, what I said with the last line is that you're a repeat liar, and they are not their illness. And thankfully we protect the vulnerable both from malice from crazies and from themselves as well as treat them when they become deranged. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."The woman mentioned in the article had previously requested euthanasia, and at the time when the operation was being performed she was in such an advanced state of dementia she likely had no idea what was going on. Moreover, the author states that 1 such case ought to be sufficient to end all assisted suicide, for any reason whatsoever. Interesting if we applied that same standard to transportation (1 road death is sufficient for a worldwide ban on all motorised transportation). Antinatalists all believe that life is an imposition, and even on this count alone, you have denigrated me. Some believe that it's sufficient just to not procreate themselves, which is kind of similar to saying that there shouldn't be any laws against rape, people should just be honourable enough not to rape, but there should never be any consequences for having done so. So I guess you think that anyone with a mental illness is possessed by a demon, if their repeated request to die is not at all reflective of that person's thinking and values?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 0:54:30 GMT
tpfkar Yes, your arguments are illogical. I apologise if I said 'fuck off' as I remember now that I did. If they're illogical, all you can show for it is 'they don't exist yet, so therefore there's no reason to consider their welfare when they do exist' and 'if we don't bring people into the world to be tortured, those people won't know that torture is bad, so therefore they need to exist so they can know how terrible it is to be tortured'. I don't mind about the fact that you swore, I just wanted to highlight that you were getting very emotional about supposedly 'illogical' arguments. No, the're bonkers because you can (and should) consider all aspects, incorporating all the good and the bad. Not the deranged "you can consider the negative implications to the nonexistent (or their future), but, you can't consider the good for the nonexistent because they're nonexistant"! And she swore because you were again saying nasty things, this time about her. You have a very florid and overwrought way with your fantasy nasties in your continual upset. Like Erj, you seem to think the more absurdly hyperbolic and crass you get the more you'll convince. Moreover, it may be possible to spray a chemical in the world's air, or add something to the water supply that would prevent women from becoming pregnant. It wouldn't be necessary to ban sex. Alternatively, we could develop an AI that would peacefully and swiftly wipe out all sentient organisms on Earth, perhaps by releasing some kind of toxin into the air.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 1:02:28 GMT
tpfkar Sure, and holding people down and killing them as they're fighting against it. And of course that doesn't sound too "egregious" to you. Much less than nuking the world. And if it was probably this, and probably that, why did the regulating board have such a problem with it, and why a problem with many others? And ahhh, what's your oft-wailed phrase? To the man! And how about a source on his religion? And I'm good with you babbling that being killed instantly in an accident or vaporized by a madman is not harm. Make it part of your regular repertoire. And antinatalists aren't generally crazy whacks who want to nuke the world or institute jackboot thugism. But you hold onto your dreams, you do have a lot of them. And no, what I said with the last line is that you're a repeat liar, and they are not their illness. And thankfully we protect the vulnerable both from malice from crazies and from themselves as well as treat them when they become deranged. "I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks" "If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."The woman mentioned in the article had previously requested euthanasia, and at the time when the operation was being performed she was in such an advanced state of dementia she likely had no idea what was going on. Moreover, the author states that 1 such case ought to be sufficient to end all assisted suicide, for any reason whatsoever. Interesting if we applied that same standard to transportation (1 road death is sufficient for a worldwide ban on all motorised transportation). Antinatalists all believe that life is an imposition, and even on this count alone, you have denigrated me. Some believe that it's sufficient just to not procreate themselves, which is kind of similar to saying that there shouldn't be any laws against rape, people should just be honourable enough not to rape, but there should never be any consequences for having done so. So I guess you think that anyone with a mental illness is possessed by a demon, if their repeated request to die is not at all reflective of that person's thinking and values? Right, you're with killing somebody who's fighting against it on the grounds that they're incompetent, but aghast at refraining from killing them on the grounds that they're incompetent. Her wishes were ambiguous; there have been many more than one case; road deaths are not intentional. Comparing the superior option of experiencing this blast or rejecting it to rape, for the child anyway, is pure derangement par for the course. Birth is in fact a great good. Antinatalists believe life is a net negative. They don't in general advocate as you do both jackboot thugism and nuking the world. And I can see how you with your abiding religious bent and need for both savior and perfection, would go to demons. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 29, 2018 1:31:23 GMT
Not necessarily, in fact not at all except for rare cases like yourself. An overwhelming majority of sentient creatures especially humans are happy to have been born and content with their lives, its variety and ups and downs and they always have the option of terminating it if this is ,rarely ,not the case. There is no cycle of imposition. It is your opinion only. Many don't have any option to terminate (the severely disabled, for whom you've undoubtedly no sympathy), and many are functionally unable to do so, either for reasons of instinct, lack of access to any kind of reliable method, holding the sincere belief that committing suicide would only lead to an eternity of torture in hell, feeling obligated to have to endure their suffering in order to spare the suffering of others, etc. And even in the scenario where anybody could commit suicide, there's still the imposition of the suffering that would have lead them up to the point of wanting to die, and people like you who believe that the onus should be on them to solve a problem that someone else created without permission. That is only your subjective opinion and not an objective truth. You just asked someone else not to project what you think, so kindly do me the same courtesy. I have sympathy for everyone who is suffering. A certain amount of suffering is 'normal' in life. If the suffering becomes too much, I am an advocate of euthanasia, at the total discretion of the individual involved, as you well know, yet tend to forget so you can use it against me because we disagree on this ridiculous nonsense of 'cycle of imposition' which is frankly loony bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 1:37:32 GMT
tpfkar The woman mentioned in the article had previously requested euthanasia, and at the time when the operation was being performed she was in such an advanced state of dementia she likely had no idea what was going on. Moreover, the author states that 1 such case ought to be sufficient to end all assisted suicide, for any reason whatsoever. Interesting if we applied that same standard to transportation (1 road death is sufficient for a worldwide ban on all motorised transportation). Antinatalists all believe that life is an imposition, and even on this count alone, you have denigrated me. Some believe that it's sufficient just to not procreate themselves, which is kind of similar to saying that there shouldn't be any laws against rape, people should just be honourable enough not to rape, but there should never be any consequences for having done so. So I guess you think that anyone with a mental illness is possessed by a demon, if their repeated request to die is not at all reflective of that person's thinking and values? Right, you're with killing somebody who's fighting against it on the grounds that they're incompetent, but aghast at refraining from killing them on the grounds that they're incompetent. Her wishes were ambiguous; there have been many more than one case; road deaths are not intentional. Comparing the superior option of experiencing this blast or rejecting it to rape, for the child anyway, is pure derangement par for the course. Birth is in fact a great good. Antinatalists believe life is a net negative. They don't in general advocate as you do both jackboot thugism and nuking the world. And I can see how you with your abiding religious bent and need for both savior and perfection, would go to demons. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldThe ones that you would want to see denied the right to die (anyone except for those with a terminal illness) are often/usually capable of expressing their wishes lucidly and coherently, showing no signs of a break with reality that would be typical of those who were truly 'deranged'. Therefore, they are not 'incompetent', that's just your reactionary bigotry against the mentally ill showing through. And also your rules would exclude people who have no mental illness whatsoever, but are merely tired of life, or have physical ailments that give them a quality of life that they deem to be unacceptable. As for the woman in the article, it seems clear that she just didn't have any idea what was going on, but the whole point of getting advanced consent is to enable her to be euthanised under circumstances where her mind is gone to the extent that she doesn't know what's happening. She was recoiling from a needle, which is the type of reaction one would expect from someone with dementia when someone was coming at them with a needle. The needle may have been something that was going to relieve her pain or sedate her, rather than kill her, and the reaction would likely have been the same. The people that you would have barred from assisted suicide DO know what is going on, and are able to talk about their suffering and their reasoning processes lucidly. It should be their reasoning which is judged for competency, rather than a bigoted stigma being applied in a blanket fashion. Antinatalists believe that life is a net negative, and it does not commit one to endorsing any particular course of action about what should be done. There was someone on here (username 'mystery', or something?) who stated that she was an antinatalist, but wasn't in favour of imposing her views on other people. That's better than being a breeder, but in my view, we shouldn't take a laissez faire view to people who would selfishly impose a catastrophic level of risk and harm upon an unconsenting other, for purely selfish reasons. You wouldn't want a laissez faire approach taken if someone had embezzled from your bank account and then gone to Vegas to gamble with it (even if they intended to pay you back a little more than they stole, should lady fortune smile upon them), so why should a laissez faire approach be taken to something that is in fact the root of all potential harm?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 1:55:08 GMT
tpfkar Right, you're with killing somebody who's fighting against it on the grounds that they're incompetent, but aghast at refraining from killing them on the grounds that they're incompetent. Her wishes were ambiguous; there have been many more than one case; road deaths are not intentional. Comparing the superior option of experiencing this blast or rejecting it to rape, for the child anyway, is pure derangement par for the course. Birth is in fact a great good. Antinatalists believe life is a net negative. They don't in general advocate as you do both jackboot thugism and nuking the world. And I can see how you with your abiding religious bent and need for both savior and perfection, would go to demons. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldThe ones that you would want to see denied the right to die (anyone except for those with a terminal illness) are often/usually capable of expressing their wishes lucidly and coherently, showing no signs of a break with reality that would be typical of those who were truly 'deranged'. Therefore, they are not 'incompetent', that's just your reactionary bigotry against the mentally ill showing through. And also your rules would exclude people who have no mental illness whatsoever, but are merely tired of life, or have physical ailments that give them a quality of life that they deem to be unacceptable. As for the woman in the article, it seems clear that she just didn't have any idea what was going on, but the whole point of getting advanced consent is to enable her to be euthanised under circumstances where her mind is gone to the extent that she doesn't know what's happening. She was recoiling from a needle, which is the type of reaction one would expect from someone with dementia when someone was coming at them with a needle. The needle may have been something that was going to relieve her pain or sedate her, rather than kill her, and the reaction would likely have been the same. The people that you would have barred from assisted suicide DO know what is going on, and are able to talk about their suffering and their reasoning processes lucidly. It should be their reasoning which is judged for competency, rather than a bigoted stigma being applied in a blanket fashion. Antinatalists believe that life is a net negative, and it does not commit one to endorsing any particular course of action about what should be done. There was someone on here (username 'mystery', or something?) who stated that she was an antinatalist, but wasn't in favour of imposing her views on other people. That's better than being a breeder, but in my view, we shouldn't take a laissez faire view to people who would selfishly impose a catastrophic level of risk and harm upon an unconsenting other, for purely selfish reasons. You wouldn't want a laissez faire approach taken if someone had embezzled from your bank account and then gone to Vegas to gamble with it (even if they intended to pay you back a little more than they stole, should lady fortune smile upon them), so why should a laissez faire approach be taken to something that is in fact the root of all potential harm? Not true, you're making it up again, even if "often" is nothing but patent weaselness. Not to mention "lucidly and coherently" + mental illness == silly oxymoron. That's just your unadulterated malice against humans showing through. And of course, those who are minimally mentally/physically competent could trivially accomplish the task once they have actually decided. No, the issues in the article along with your reactions demonstrate the rank hypocrisy of excitement for killing somebody who's fighting against being killed on the grounds that they're incompetent, but squawking at refraining from killing them on the grounds that they're incompetent. And your free-flowing convenient conjectures are ever amusing. And of course I already know you're a murderous psychopath who wishes to institute jackboot thugism and nuke the world back to the massively more savage pre-civilization or even pre-sentience with is exponentially magnified suffering. But of course there is no "unconsenting other", except when the crazies go about force-terminating them. Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 2:00:29 GMT
tpfkar I believe we're seeing why this board doesn't deserve to live.... Theme from RFaS
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 30, 2018 16:06:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 3, 2018 1:26:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 3, 2018 1:35:47 GMT
Way to go, pack of a-holes!!! Number 2 answer on the board!!!
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 3, 2018 1:43:57 GMT
GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE!! This board isn't dead.... #3 answer on the board!!
|
|