|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 5, 2018 9:53:16 GMT
tpfkar Harm is not an abstract concept. Something that cannot feel harmed cannot be harmed. My suggestion with respect to non-invasively sterlising women (or even men) to prevent the conception of children is just a 'don't be a selfish, imposing arsehole' law. Paedophiles have a strong sexual desire to molest children, but you wouldn't take issue with having laws to limit their sexual freedom. Well this is the same. People shouldn't have an entitlement in law to harm others and risk their wellbeing to gratify their own desires. The cannibal issue is different from assisted suicide, in that the cannibalised likely did feel pain during the encounter. That case is somewhat morally problematic, though I tend on the side of upholding an individual's right to choose what happens to their body. If the cannibal had Nembutal, and had administered this to the person who was to be cannibalised (with that person's request) and waited for death prior to cutting up the body, thereby ensuring that there was no pain, then the case would be entirely morally unproblematic and it wouldn't matter to what use the testicles were put, post mortem. The individual would have been transitioning peacefully from a harmed state that they wanted to escape, to a state in which they can never be harmed. I don't share your conviction that our species is divine, and it can never be wrong to consensually assist someone to escape a harmed state and permanently release them from harm. Harm is not a religious objective concept which exists independently of those who can feel harmed. Also, I have never stated a belief in, nor desire for, an afterlife. Right, you believe you're invisible, therefore you're invisible. And you're the pedophile in your "analogy". Some of you feel whole hardheartedly that you're being oppressed, harassed, and discriminated against for your publicly related dreams of kid abuse, theirs being far less than the sickness to them you suckle and advocate, and that sheeple just don't understand. All the time redefining words and concepts in perverse and deranged ways. You already greenlighted the cannibal execution thing on the basis that the poor abused victim agreed to and freely participated in what normal people consider horrific abuse/crime. And the mentally ill one just as likely as not reveled in any pain in this case, and of course sought/accented to the action, so of course your pain "qualification" only highlights the various pathological inherent self-contradictions and inept ad hoc rationalizations you freely spill in your posted crazy. And your last para is a typical combination of your silly chatter and obliviously clownish lies. Yes, someone who has been murdered in any number of ways is never again harmed, still justifications given only by the cartoon psychopaths. And there is nothing "divine" about "get what you can before you're dirt", especially up against the religious pursuit of Perfection in a murderously-forced afterlife of "no harm", of course given your ludicrously deranged version of "harm", all based in a belief that your ghastly subjective magically derives from a nonexistent/nonsensical Objective. Harm is a concept we all hold, and the vast majority of those not creepily deranged do hold without question that you sneaking up and killing people instantly would be harming them, regardless of your mentally-ill rambles. 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 Feb 5, 2018 13:17:49 GMT
Harm is not an abstract concept. Something that cannot feel harmed cannot be harmed. My suggestion with respect to non-invasively sterlising women (or even men) to prevent the conception of children is just a 'don't be a selfish, imposing arsehole' law. Paedophiles have a strong sexual desire to molest children, but you wouldn't take issue with having laws to limit their sexual freedom. Well this is the same. People shouldn't have an entitlement in law to harm others and risk their wellbeing to gratify their own desires. The cannibal issue is different from assisted suicide, in that the cannibalised likely did feel pain during the encounter. That case is somewhat morally problematic, though I tend on the side of upholding an individual's right to choose what happens to their body. If the cannibal had Nembutal, and had administered this to the person who was to be cannibalised (with that person's request) and waited for death prior to cutting up the body, thereby ensuring that there was no pain, then the case would be entirely morally unproblematic and it wouldn't matter to what use the testicles were put, post mortem. The individual would have been transitioning peacefully from a harmed state that they wanted to escape, to a state in which they can never be harmed. I don't share your conviction that our species is divine, and it can never be wrong to consensually assist someone to escape a harmed state and permanently release them from harm. Harm is not a religious objective concept which exists independently of those who can feel harmed. Also, I have never stated a belief in, nor desire for, an afterlife. 'Harm' is in the eye of the beholder. I agree, therefore if you aren't feeling harmed and will not in the future feel harmed by what is being done now, then you aren't being harmed. It's absurd for someone to decide on your behalf that you're being harmed by something by which you'll never feel harmed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 13:24:55 GMT
tpfkar Harm is not an abstract concept. Something that cannot feel harmed cannot be harmed. My suggestion with respect to non-invasively sterlising women (or even men) to prevent the conception of children is just a 'don't be a selfish, imposing arsehole' law. Paedophiles have a strong sexual desire to molest children, but you wouldn't take issue with having laws to limit their sexual freedom. Well this is the same. People shouldn't have an entitlement in law to harm others and risk their wellbeing to gratify their own desires. The cannibal issue is different from assisted suicide, in that the cannibalised likely did feel pain during the encounter. That case is somewhat morally problematic, though I tend on the side of upholding an individual's right to choose what happens to their body. If the cannibal had Nembutal, and had administered this to the person who was to be cannibalised (with that person's request) and waited for death prior to cutting up the body, thereby ensuring that there was no pain, then the case would be entirely morally unproblematic and it wouldn't matter to what use the testicles were put, post mortem. The individual would have been transitioning peacefully from a harmed state that they wanted to escape, to a state in which they can never be harmed. I don't share your conviction that our species is divine, and it can never be wrong to consensually assist someone to escape a harmed state and permanently release them from harm. Harm is not a religious objective concept which exists independently of those who can feel harmed. Also, I have never stated a belief in, nor desire for, an afterlife. Right, you believe you're invisible, therefore you're invisible. And you're the pedophile in your "analogy". Some of you feel whole hardheartedly that you're being oppressed, harassed, and discriminated against for your publicly related dreams of kid abuse, theirs being far less than the sickness to them you suckle and advocate, and that sheeple just don't understand. All the time redefining words and concepts in perverse and deranged ways. You already greenlighted the cannibal execution thing on the basis that the poor abused victim agreed to and freely participated in what normal people consider horrific abuse/crime. And the mentally ill one just as likely as not reveled in any pain in this case, and of course sought/accented to the action, so of course your pain "qualification" only highlights the various pathological inherent self-contradictions and inept ad hoc rationalizations you freely spill in your posted crazy. And your last para is a typical combination of your silly chatter and obliviously clownish lies. Yes, someone who has been murdered in any number of ways is never again harmed, still justifications given only by the cartoon psychopaths. And there is nothing "divine" about "get what you can before you're dirt", especially up against the religious pursuit of Perfection in a murderously-forced afterlife of "no harm", of course given your ludicrously deranged version of "harm", all based in a belief that your ghastly subjective magically derives from a nonexistent/nonsensical Objective. Harm is a concept we all hold, and the vast majority of those not creepily deranged do hold without question that you sneaking up and killing people instantly would be harming them, regardless of your mentally-ill rambles. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"No, you're the paedophile by 'molesting' the people you're supposed to care about into existence; thus creating problems where there need be none (including, of course, the possibility of being sexually molested). If the person being cannibalised doesn't feel harmed at any point, then there's no harm. It's not personally my cup of tea, but just because I don't understand why someone would want that, doesn't mean that my puritanism should get in the way of their rights. If "get what you can before you're dirt" was merely the philosophy that you tried to live your own life by (and perhaps gave others that advice without wanting to see it enshrined into law), then I wouldn't accuse you of being religious. You're being religious because you want to take away the rights of others to have an easy way of escaping an intolerably painful situation that likely won't get any better whilst the person is still living. And you do this on the basis of a 'harm' that is only imagined by people who aren't involved in the procedure. There are other ways of expressing that it's wrong to surreptitiously murder someone swiftly and painlessly without their consent, other than invoking ('Arloning' to use your Internet-ism) the concept "harm". It is still a violation of that person's rights, which are protected for good reason. But there is no good reason for the "right" to be forced to live against one's own will; merely religious sanctity-of-life types projecting their own terror of death.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 5, 2018 14:17:15 GMT
That's not necessarily true, and it's especially not necessarily true that one would find the situation (not to mention experience in general) negative on balance. It's known that sentient animals do feel distress when they're harmed. Animals probably don't think about the value of life and whether it's positive or negative, but they also don't have religion built around the assertion that life is meaningful and valuable in a positive way. For all other minds--that is, any mind other than one's own mind, all we can do is make educated guesses based on indirect evidence. We make the assumption that that's more plausible the more similar other animals' (including other humans') brains are to our own, in structure and function, but really, it's just a guess even when it comes to other humans. We have no idea just what observable brain events amount to just what mental events--the best we can do is observe some correlations, but those correlations may wind up being fairly far removed from being an identity (an identity means that the physical event is identical to the mental event from a first-person perspective), and we'll never be able to pin that down, because of the third-person/first-person dichotomy. That dichotomy would have to not obtain in order to be able to pin down just what the observable/experienceable connection is for any particular phenomena. That's different than trying to pin down correlations for any other sort of phenomena, because this is the only phenomena for which anyone cares about the frame of reference of being the phenomena in question, and that's just the task here. For all other correlations, we strictly stick to third-person perspectives and don't worry about/don't care about being the phenomena in question. Given all of that, it's much more of a guess trying to say just what mental phenomena any other species of animal experiences, or even if they experience mental phenomena at all. We have no idea just what the structural and functional threshhold is that makes the difference between conscious and unconscious brain events. So no, we don't know that other animals feel anything, or what it would at all be like if they do, beyond making a guess about it, beyond making working assumptions that we're more or less comfortable with, imagining that (basically anthropomorphizing that) other animals have anything like human experiences.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 5, 2018 14:33:40 GMT
tpfkar Right, you believe you're invisible, therefore you're invisible. And you're the pedophile in your "analogy". Some of you feel whole hardheartedly that you're being oppressed, harassed, and discriminated against for your publicly related dreams of kid abuse, theirs being far less than the sickness to them you suckle and advocate, and that sheeple just don't understand. All the time redefining words and concepts in perverse and deranged ways. You already greenlighted the cannibal execution thing on the basis that the poor abused victim agreed to and freely participated in what normal people consider horrific abuse/crime. And the mentally ill one just as likely as not reveled in any pain in this case, and of course sought/accented to the action, so of course your pain "qualification" only highlights the various pathological inherent self-contradictions and inept ad hoc rationalizations you freely spill in your posted crazy. And your last para is a typical combination of your silly chatter and obliviously clownish lies. Yes, someone who has been murdered in any number of ways is never again harmed, still justifications given only by the cartoon psychopaths. And there is nothing "divine" about "get what you can before you're dirt", especially up against the religious pursuit of Perfection in a murderously-forced afterlife of "no harm", of course given your ludicrously deranged version of "harm", all based in a belief that your ghastly subjective magically derives from a nonexistent/nonsensical Objective. Harm is a concept we all hold, and the vast majority of those not creepily deranged do hold without question that you sneaking up and killing people instantly would be harming them, regardless of your mentally-ill rambles. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"No, you're the paedophile by 'molesting' the people you're supposed to care about into existence; thus creating problems where there need be none (including, of course, the possibility of being sexually molested). If the person being cannibalised doesn't feel harmed at any point, then there's no harm. It's not personally my cup of tea, but just because I don't understand why someone would want that, doesn't mean that my puritanism should get in the way of their rights. If "get what you can before you're dirt" was merely the philosophy that you tried to live your own life by (and perhaps gave others that advice without wanting to see it enshrined into law), then I wouldn't accuse you of being religious. You're being religious because you want to take away the rights of others to have an easy way of escaping an intolerably painful situation that likely won't get any better whilst the person is still living. And you do this on the basis of a 'harm' that is only imagined by people who aren't involved in the procedure. There are other ways of expressing that it's wrong to surreptitiously murder someone swiftly and painlessly without their consent, other than invoking ('Arloning' to use your Internet-ism) the concept "harm". It is still a violation of that person's rights, which are protected for good reason. But there is no good reason for the "right" to be forced to live against one's own will; merely religious sanctity-of-life types projecting their own terror of death. No, you're just a pedophile. Both to kids and to language. Only you also want to kill both. You're sick to your very core, with your desires to violate women and murder masses, and the patent stupidities and insipid irrationalities you constantly emit, and your constant shrill gushes that make no sense other than when applied to yourself. Right, so you're again back from your gibbering forth on the mentally ill person who wanted to be cannibalized and gutted, and support the sex-deviant murder of the mentally ill. And, sure, like a good pedophile, it's just the "puritanism" of the masses that keeps you guys from engaging in your repulsive desires. I don't want to take rights away from others. Unlike you I don't like to let deranged madmen sexually mutilate or kill people even if a mentally ill, child, demented elderly, Down syndrome or whatever, assents to your horrific wants. People whose mental state leaves them incompetent to protect themselves need to be shielded from demented deviant predators like you. 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 Feb 5, 2018 14:59:34 GMT
tpfkar No, you're the paedophile by 'molesting' the people you're supposed to care about into existence; thus creating problems where there need be none (including, of course, the possibility of being sexually molested). If the person being cannibalised doesn't feel harmed at any point, then there's no harm. It's not personally my cup of tea, but just because I don't understand why someone would want that, doesn't mean that my puritanism should get in the way of their rights. If "get what you can before you're dirt" was merely the philosophy that you tried to live your own life by (and perhaps gave others that advice without wanting to see it enshrined into law), then I wouldn't accuse you of being religious. You're being religious because you want to take away the rights of others to have an easy way of escaping an intolerably painful situation that likely won't get any better whilst the person is still living. And you do this on the basis of a 'harm' that is only imagined by people who aren't involved in the procedure. There are other ways of expressing that it's wrong to surreptitiously murder someone swiftly and painlessly without their consent, other than invoking ('Arloning' to use your Internet-ism) the concept "harm". It is still a violation of that person's rights, which are protected for good reason. But there is no good reason for the "right" to be forced to live against one's own will; merely religious sanctity-of-life types projecting their own terror of death. No, you're just a pedophile. Both to kids and to language. Only you also want to kill both. You're sick to your very core, with your desires to violate women and murder masses, and the patent stupidities and insipid irrationalities you constantly emit, and your constant shrill gushes that make no sense other than when applied to yourself. Right, so you're again back from your gibbering forth on the mentally ill person who wanted to be cannibalized and gutted, and support the sex-deviant murder of the mentally ill. And, sure, like a good pedophile, it's just the "puritanism" of the masses that keeps you guys from engaging in your repulsive desires. I don't want to take rights away from others. Unlike you I don't like to let deranged madmen sexually mutilate or kill people even if a mentally ill, child, demented elderly, Down syndrome or whatever, assents to your horrific wants. People whose mental state leaves them incompetent to protect themselves need to be shielded from demented deviant predators like you. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"You're the one who wants to directly impose on other people in order to gratify yourself. A law which says that you're not allowed to unduly impose a lifetime of harm and risk on those who cannot consent to the imposition is no "violation" at all, when it would be achievable without any invasive procedure. Like I've mentioned, a case in which someone is mutilated before death is completely different from a clinical setting in which all efforts are taken to ensure the patient's comfort; so any squeamishness that might apply to the case of the cannibal should not apply to assisting a patient to escape circumstances that they find intolerably miserable, in such a way that is tailored to the comfort of that patient. You're wanting to severely restrict the rights of people with respect to the amount of control that they're allowed to take over their own life and future; whereas the only place that I draw the line is when they impose a lifetime of risk on those who cannot consent, or anything that causes genuine harm to others without consent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 5, 2018 15:05:39 GMT
tpfkar So you're half way to negating your own argument already, since you're arguing for a valueless universe. Fortunate then that we don't live in such a universe; you have it backwards, it's the "bad" which really only consists in temporarily staving off the "bad". Thanks for that. Of course I want a valueless universe, as opposed to one where unconsenting sentient beings are on a forced march through a minefield. And in this universe, if you don't get what you desire, you likely would feel deprived of it, which is a negative value state. Once you have the things that you desire, then that serves to escalate your expectations, you become bored with what you have and you will then desire something that is even harder to obtain. It's called the hedonic treadmill effect. And the Indonesian peasants who manufactured your clothes toiling for 16 hours a day for 50 pence under oppressive conditions likely don't think that the suffering in life is only an inconsequential blemish. Which sentient beings are these? And your valuations are quite the outlier of the morbid and mass-murderous kind. And there you go making up things Ada-style again. Or maybe she did it micCee-style. "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."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 5, 2018 15:16:36 GMT
tpfkar No, you're just a pedophile. Both to kids and to language. Only you also want to kill both. You're sick to your very core, with your desires to violate women and murder masses, and the patent stupidities and insipid irrationalities you constantly emit, and your constant shrill gushes that make no sense other than when applied to yourself. Right, so you're again back from your gibbering forth on the mentally ill person who wanted to be cannibalized and gutted, and support the sex-deviant murder of the mentally ill. And, sure, like a good pedophile, it's just the "puritanism" of the masses that keeps you guys from engaging in your repulsive desires. I don't want to take rights away from others. Unlike you I don't like to let deranged madmen sexually mutilate or kill people even if a mentally ill, child, demented elderly, Down syndrome or whatever, assents to your horrific wants. People whose mental state leaves them incompetent to protect themselves need to be shielded from demented deviant predators like you. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"You're the one who wants to directly impose on other people in order to gratify yourself. A law which says that you're not allowed to unduly impose a lifetime of harm and risk on those who cannot consent to the imposition is no "violation" at all, when it would be achievable without any invasive procedure. Like I've mentioned, a case in which someone is mutilated before death is completely different from a clinical setting in which all efforts are taken to ensure the patient's comfort; so any squeamishness that might apply to the case of the cannibal should not apply to assisting a patient to escape circumstances that they find intolerably miserable, in such a way that is tailored to the comfort of that patient. You're wanting to severely restrict the rights of people with respect to the amount of control that they're allowed to take over their own life and future; whereas the only place that I draw the line is when they impose a lifetime of risk on those who cannot consent, or anything that causes genuine harm to others without consent. You're the one who can't get a date because you want to slice and consume their balls. And cult-dream of inserting yourself into women's reproductive tracts, and mass-murder all. No bare "lifetime of risk and harm" has been "imposed", unduly or otherwise. You're the one who wants to force terminate those who cannot consent and support the mentally ill in being abused by you real and wannabe violating mass murderous predators. And you're back to your gibbering right after you just said it's a-ok for you repugnant freaks to dice and eat the testicles of the mentally ill before gutting them. Try to "organize" your mind so that your chattery dissembling has any chance at all. I think my "let's try to protect them in their derangement" stacks up quite nicely to your "let's let deviants sex-mutilate murder them if they express assent to it. But if they express dissent to being killed, better hold them down and fry their veins or sterilize them, or whatever. 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 goz on Feb 5, 2018 20:35:27 GMT
'Harm' is in the eye of the beholder. I agree, therefore if you aren't feeling harmed and will not in the future feel harmed by what is being done now, then you aren't being harmed. It's absurd for someone to decide on your behalf that you're being harmed by something by which you'll never feel harmed. Put simply, it all comes down to this: You can't be harmed if you don't exist. If you do exist like you and me and all the people in the world and living things, then you are harmed if you are forcibly sterilised and/or killed. It is absurd to speak on behalf of those who don't exist, because they don't exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:16:19 GMT
Any that are born, as I've mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 1:17:49 GMT
tpfkar That's not clear at all. You're just assuming that it's the case. As I said above, logically, sentience might be completely irrelevant evolutionarily. (And actually, I'd say that based on empirical evidence, it seems likely that sentience is irrelevant evolutionarily, since the vast majority of living things, including the vast majority of animals, are not sentient.) In any case, if an animal with sentience comes across environmental stressors, that is going to be accompanied by unpleasant experience. What a great system that allows for more and more pleasure and contentment as we organize. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 1:22:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:24:10 GMT
tpfkar You're the one who wants to directly impose on other people in order to gratify yourself. A law which says that you're not allowed to unduly impose a lifetime of harm and risk on those who cannot consent to the imposition is no "violation" at all, when it would be achievable without any invasive procedure. Like I've mentioned, a case in which someone is mutilated before death is completely different from a clinical setting in which all efforts are taken to ensure the patient's comfort; so any squeamishness that might apply to the case of the cannibal should not apply to assisting a patient to escape circumstances that they find intolerably miserable, in such a way that is tailored to the comfort of that patient. You're wanting to severely restrict the rights of people with respect to the amount of control that they're allowed to take over their own life and future; whereas the only place that I draw the line is when they impose a lifetime of risk on those who cannot consent, or anything that causes genuine harm to others without consent. You're the one who can't get a date because you want to slice and consume their balls. And cult-dream of inserting yourself into women's reproductive tracts, and mass-murder all. No bare "lifetime of risk and harm" has been "imposed", unduly or otherwise. You're the one who wants to force terminate those who cannot consent and support the mentally ill in being abused by you real and wannabe violating mass murderous predators. And you're back to your gibbering right after you just said it's a-ok for you repugnant freaks to dice and eat the testicles of the mentally ill before gutting them. Try to "organize" your mind so that your chattery dissembling has any chance at all. I think my "let's try to protect them in their derangement" stacks up quite nicely to your "let's let deviants sex-mutilate murder them if they express assent to it. But if they express dissent to being killed, better hold them down and fry their veins or sterilize them, or whatever. 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.Now you're just reduced to libel, with this post and the unsubstantiated claim about me being a paedophile. With your cataloging of my posts, where have I made any statement to suggest that I'm a paedophile and would like to cannibalise another person? And are you honestly claiming that risk and harm are not properties that exist for sentient living creatures? I don't support any mentally ill being abused at all, and I consider your stigmatisation of all mentally ill as 'deranged' and incapable of rational choice to be abusive to those people that you pretend to want to protect. With respect to the cannibal scenario, I'm simply rejecting your attempt to conflate that with someone receiving assistance to die in a compassionate and caring environment, designed to put the patient at ease. Since you've stated that the terminally ill should have the right to be assisted to die, does that mean that you would also support private cannibalisation agreements for these people, given that you're trying to present them as the same? In a controlled clinical environment, we can eliminate all doubt that what is being done is at the consent of the patient, and that any painful sensations are minimised. That isn't to say that I don't think that people should be allowed to make agreements to be cannibalised, simply that acceptance of this is not implied by the desire to have humane right to die laws implemented universally. And as previously stated, there's little to indicate that patients who are compos mentis are being forcibly euthanised against their will, and there are plenty of reasons to think that a woman with advanced dementia is acting instinctually when recoiling from a needle, rather than trying to go back on her previous advanced directive to request euthanasia under such circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 1:25:33 GMT
Any that are born, as I've mentioned. Your logical problem here is that you have to be born to be sentient. Before that you are neither sentient nor in fact exist at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:25:36 GMT
If you think that abortion is an imposition on the foetus, then go and join forces with Cody. I'm sure he'd be happy to have you on the team; him and all those evangelical and Catholic pro-life bloggers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:28:08 GMT
I agree, therefore if you aren't feeling harmed and will not in the future feel harmed by what is being done now, then you aren't being harmed. It's absurd for someone to decide on your behalf that you're being harmed by something by which you'll never feel harmed. Put simply, it all comes down to this: You can't be harmed if you don't exist. If you do exist like you and me and all the people in the world and living things, then you are harmed if you are forcibly sterilised and/or killed. It is absurd to speak on behalf of those who don't exist, because they don't exist. Someone who has died by assisted suicide no longer exists to be harmed. Nobody's speaking on behalf of those who don't exist, except cupcakes, who insists that they are being harmed by having their existence curtailed at their own request (whilst still alive). A woman or man's fertility is only useful for forcefully imposing life on others. Therefore any 'harm' is only in the context of preventing them from being an imposing arsehole and creating problems for others for the sake of their own self-gratification.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 1:29:10 GMT
tpfkar If you think that abortion is an imposition on the foetus, then go and join forces with Cody. I'm sure he'd be happy to have you on the team; him and all those evangelical and Catholic pro-life bloggers. You just said it was, brain trust. Pick a single stupidity of yours and run with it. And you're the evangelical with your death cult search for perfection based on what you say is an universe "Objective". Even have your Heavens Gate ending planned. They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:32:25 GMT
tpfkar If you think that abortion is an imposition on the foetus, then go and join forces with Cody. I'm sure he'd be happy to have you on the team; him and all those evangelical and Catholic pro-life bloggers. You just said it was, brain trust. Pick a single stupidity of yours and run with it. And you're the evangelical with your death cult search for perfection based on what you say is an universe "Objective". Even have your Heavens Gate ending planned. They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.The only creatures who are imposed upon are those who develop sentience. To prevent a creature from becoming sentient (such as by abortion) is to prevent an imposition.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 1:40:10 GMT
Put simply, it all comes down to this: You can't be harmed if you don't exist. If you do exist like you and me and all the people in the world and living things, then you are harmed if you are forcibly sterilised and/or killed. It is absurd to speak on behalf of those who don't exist, because they don't exist. Someone who has died by assisted suicide no longer exists to be harmed. Nobody's speaking on behalf of those who don't exist, except cupcakes , who insists that they are being harmed by having their existence curtailed at their own request (whilst still alive). A woman or man's fertility is only useful for forcefully imposing life on others. Therefore any 'harm' is only in the context of preventing them from being an imposing arsehole and creating problems for others for the sake of their own self-gratification. NO, that would be YOU insisting that they can't give consent before birth. WE are the ones that say that they don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 1:43:07 GMT
tpfkar Now you're just reduced to libel, with this post and the unsubstantiated claim about me being a paedophile. With your cataloging of my posts, where have I made any statement to suggest that I'm a paedophile and would like to cannibalise another person? And are you honestly claiming that risk and harm are not properties that exist for sentient living creatures? I don't support any mentally ill being abused at all, and I consider your stigmatisation of all mentally ill as 'deranged' and incapable of rational choice to be abusive to those people that you pretend to want to protect. With respect to the cannibal scenario, I'm simply rejecting your attempt to conflate that with someone receiving assistance to die in a compassionate and caring environment, designed to put the patient at ease. Since you've stated that the terminally ill should have the right to be assisted to die, does that mean that you would also support private cannibalisation agreements for these people, given that you're trying to present them as the same? In a controlled clinical environment, we can eliminate all doubt that what is being done is at the consent of the patient, and that any painful sensations are minimised. That isn't to say that I don't think that people should be allowed to make agreements to be cannibalised, simply that acceptance of this is not implied by the desire to have humane right to die laws implemented universally. And as previously stated, there's little to indicate that patients who are compos mentis are being forcibly euthanised against their will, and there are plenty of reasons to think that a woman with advanced dementia is acting instinctually when recoiling from a needle, rather than trying to go back on her previous advanced directive to request euthanasia under such circumstances. No, its more true that the ludicrous inane libel you've been shatting out continuously. "Pedophile" is another of your shrill analogies like religious that apply to you far more than any other in this conversation. You substantiate your sick deviancy with every post. Are you honestly making up things never claimed yet again? You support a mentally ill person being able to assent to having his testicles fed to him while alive and then finished off by gutting by people like-minded to you. I consider your continuous shrill deranged horsesh!t on just about everything to be a product of your mental illness and complete lack of integrity and restraint. And no, much like you holding that murdering someone instantly being no harm to them as they never knew it, you also overtly support the mentally ill being sexually mutilated and killed by similarly sexually deviant homicidal maniacs. That's the point, the fundamental dementedness of your shattered though processes and posts, not your silly natterings about "imposition" "harm of the nonexistent", and worship of pain as more important than all other, and that any mentally ill person should be accommodated in what they want regardless of how deranged the ideas are. As noted earlier, there's everything to indicate that you're not abashed at making the most inept ad hoc spins about anything, and like lists of other words will glibly pervert "compos mentis" as well in any way necessary to support your wannabe female violating mass murdering psychopathic manias. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|