Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:47:45 GMT
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. It's still going to have to be an existing person who will be forced to deal with the consequences of that decision. And if you support initiatives to try and get climate change under control, then you're thinking about the welfare of people who don't exist at present, so are being hypocritical. Either you think that it's OK to make plans to harm people in the future because they don't exist yet, or you think that the future welfare of those who will exist is important.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 1:48:24 GMT
tpfkar 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. So those who are not sentient? Like I said, pick a single stupidity of yours and run with it. Of course, following your shambling "logic", the forcible female reproductive termination by jackboot madmen is the imposition upon those who develop sentience, not the refraining from such repugnant psychopath assault. 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 1:56:14 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*****"What have I ever posted that would indicate that I have a sexual interest in children? And based on the blanket statements that you're making about people with mental illness (that they basically have no responsibility over what they say, because they're all to utterly deranged to think straight), then it would be hypocritical of you to condemn me for thoughts that are a product of a mental illness. If the state has to oversee every aspect of a mentally ill person's decision making because those people can't be trusted to make decisions that are in their own interests, then that would surely have to extend to excusing those same people for their opinions, because as you put it, no mentally ill person knows what their opinions or values are, and therefore what they say can never be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their thoughts. I don't 'support' any kind of mutilation, my point was merely that it wasn't my place to judge the predilections of the person who agreed to be cannibalised, and that the cannibal found someone who was a willing and consensual participant, rather than luring someone to their home on false pretenses. I stand up for all kinds of rights that I don't have any interests in exercising myself. And if you're saying that the two cases are identical, then you're implying that it would be fine for a terminally ill person (who you believe should have the right to die) to cannibalised in a consensual agreement. As for assisted suicide in a compassionate and comforting environment, there could be nothing less deranged than that. It's wanting to forcibly keep others alive when it's clear that they are suffering terribly and wish to be allowed to die that is 'deranged'.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 1:57:33 GMT
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. It's still going to have to be an existing person who will be forced to deal with the consequences of that decision. And if you support initiatives to try and get climate change under control, then you're thinking about the welfare of people who don't exist at present, so are being hypocritical. Either you think that it's OK to make plans to harm people in the future because they don't exist yet, or you think that the future welfare of those who will exist is important. Hey Mic, you DO realise that thinking of future generations is the exact opposite of what you are proposing, right? You are proposing to sterilise everyone so they can't reproduce, and/or killing everyone.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 1:57:52 GMT
tpfkar 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. It's still going to have to be an existing person who will be forced to deal with the consequences of that decision. And if you support initiatives to try and get climate change under control, then you're thinking about the welfare of people who don't exist at present, so are being hypocritical. Either you think that it's OK to make plans to harm people in the future because they don't exist yet, or you think that the future welfare of those who will exist is important. Giving birth is not harming them but giving them the option to experience and enjoy this wonderful experience. Getting climate change under control is on the same line as incarcerating deviant religious madmen who wish to forcefully violate women's reproductive tracts and poison the Earth with nuclear radiation in a psychopathic crusade to mass murder everyone to get to the Perfection of a "harm free" afterlife. Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 2:03:15 GMT
tpfkar 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*****"What have I ever posted that would indicate that I have a sexual interest in children? And based on the blanket statements that you're making about people with mental illness (that they basically have no responsibility over what they say, because they're all to utterly deranged to think straight), then it would be hypocritical of you to condemn me for thoughts that are a product of a mental illness. If the state has to oversee every aspect of a mentally ill person's decision making because those people can't be trusted to make decisions that are in their own interests, then that would surely have to extend to excusing those same people for their opinions, because as you put it, no mentally ill person knows what their opinions or values are, and therefore what they say can never be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their thoughts. I don't 'support' any kind of mutilation, my point was merely that it wasn't my place to judge the predilections of the person who agreed to be cannibalised, and that the cannibal found someone who was a willing and consensual participant, rather than luring someone to their home on false pretenses. I stand up for all kinds of rights that I don't have any interests in exercising myself. And if you're saying that the two cases are identical, then you're implying that it would be fine for a terminally ill person (who you believe should have the right to die) to cannibalised in a consensual agreement. As for assisted suicide in a compassionate and comforting environment, there could be nothing less deranged than that. It's wanting to forcibly keep others alive when it's clear that they are suffering terribly and wish to be allowed to die that is 'deranged'. WOW! You couldn't make this kind of abhorrent appalling deviant disgusting shit up, people! Mic, you need to seek help. You are seriously more than ever talking like a psychopathic homicidal maniac. I am out!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 2:20:47 GMT
What have I ever posted that would indicate that I have a sexual interest in children? And based on the blanket statements that you're making about people with mental illness (that they basically have no responsibility over what they say, because they're all to utterly deranged to think straight), then it would be hypocritical of you to condemn me for thoughts that are a product of a mental illness. If the state has to oversee every aspect of a mentally ill person's decision making because those people can't be trusted to make decisions that are in their own interests, then that would surely have to extend to excusing those same people for their opinions, because as you put it, no mentally ill person knows what their opinions or values are, and therefore what they say can never be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their thoughts. I don't 'support' any kind of mutilation, my point was merely that it wasn't my place to judge the predilections of the person who agreed to be cannibalised, and that the cannibal found someone who was a willing and consensual participant, rather than luring someone to their home on false pretenses. I stand up for all kinds of rights that I don't have any interests in exercising myself. And if you're saying that the two cases are identical, then you're implying that it would be fine for a terminally ill person (who you believe should have the right to die) to cannibalised in a consensual agreement. As for assisted suicide in a compassionate and comforting environment, there could be nothing less deranged than that. It's wanting to forcibly keep others alive when it's clear that they are suffering terribly and wish to be allowed to die that is 'deranged'. WOW! You couldn't make this kind of abhorrent appalling deviant disgusting shit up, people! Mic, you need to seek help. You are seriously more than ever talking like a psychopathic homicidal maniac. I am out! I'm glad that you've been honest that you consider it "abhorrent appalling deviant disgusting" to allow people to be able to make consensual choices regarding their own body. That explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 2:21:30 GMT
tpfkar 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*****"What have I ever posted that would indicate that I have a sexual interest in children? And based on the blanket statements that you're making about people with mental illness (that they basically have no responsibility over what they say, because they're all to utterly deranged to think straight), then it would be hypocritical of you to condemn me for thoughts that are a product of a mental illness. If the state has to oversee every aspect of a mentally ill person's decision making because those people can't be trusted to make decisions that are in their own interests, then that would surely have to extend to excusing those same people for their opinions, because as you put it, no mentally ill person knows what their opinions or values are, and therefore what they say can never be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their thoughts. I don't 'support' any kind of mutilation, my point was merely that it wasn't my place to judge the predilections of the person who agreed to be cannibalised, and that the cannibal found someone who was a willing and consensual participant, rather than luring someone to their home on false pretenses. I stand up for all kinds of rights that I don't have any interests in exercising myself. And if you're saying that the two cases are identical, then you're implying that it would be fine for a terminally ill person (who you believe should have the right to die) to cannibalised in a consensual agreement. As for assisted suicide in a compassionate and comforting environment, there could be nothing less deranged than that. It's wanting to forcibly keep others alive when it's clear that they are suffering terribly and wish to be allowed to die that is 'deranged'. When you field "pedophilia" and try to apply it ludicrously you can't squawk it's pointed out that the analogy applies far more to you. Coupled with your wish to murder all kids and greenlight having the mentally ill be sexually mutilated and gutted when they "assent to it". And I haven't made any such statements concerning the mentally ill, that's just your free shatting of more of your unrestrained stupidity. I've said we can't trust their output and if they were mentally competent then they would neither need nor ask to be put down, they'd accomplish the trivial if actually decided physical act themselves without opening themselves up to observation. You just without any control at all post hysterical squealed lie after hysterical squealed lie. You support the forcible violation of women's reproductive tracts, And the mass murder of as many as you can accomplish, including of kids. And the right of deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill. "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."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 2:32:01 GMT
tpfkar What have I ever posted that would indicate that I have a sexual interest in children? And based on the blanket statements that you're making about people with mental illness (that they basically have no responsibility over what they say, because they're all to utterly deranged to think straight), then it would be hypocritical of you to condemn me for thoughts that are a product of a mental illness. If the state has to oversee every aspect of a mentally ill person's decision making because those people can't be trusted to make decisions that are in their own interests, then that would surely have to extend to excusing those same people for their opinions, because as you put it, no mentally ill person knows what their opinions or values are, and therefore what they say can never be trusted to be an accurate reflection of their thoughts. I don't 'support' any kind of mutilation, my point was merely that it wasn't my place to judge the predilections of the person who agreed to be cannibalised, and that the cannibal found someone who was a willing and consensual participant, rather than luring someone to their home on false pretenses. I stand up for all kinds of rights that I don't have any interests in exercising myself. And if you're saying that the two cases are identical, then you're implying that it would be fine for a terminally ill person (who you believe should have the right to die) to cannibalised in a consensual agreement. As for assisted suicide in a compassionate and comforting environment, there could be nothing less deranged than that. It's wanting to forcibly keep others alive when it's clear that they are suffering terribly and wish to be allowed to die that is 'deranged'. When you field "pedophilia" and try to apply it ludicrously you can't squawk it's pointed out that the analogy applies far more to you. Coupled with your wish to murder all kids and greenlight having the mentally ill be sexually mutilated and gutted when they "assent to it". And I haven't made any such statements concerning the mentally ill, that's just your free shatting of more of your unrestrained stupidity. I've said we can't trust their output and if they were mentally competent then they would neither need nor ask to be put down, they'd accomplish the trivial if actually decided physical act themselves without opening themselves up to observation. You just without any control at all post hysterical squealed lie after hysterical squealed lie. You support the forcible violation of women's reproductive tracts, And the mass murder of as many as you can accomplish, including of kids. And the right of deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill. "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."If anyone who asks for assistance to die is mentally ill by definition, then why would this not apply to the terminally ill, who would usually also be capable of "accomphing the trivial if actually decided physical act", but with far less risk than those who aren't terminally ill? There's no reason other than bigotry why we shouldn't trust that repeated requests for assistance in dying reflects the true values and desires of the person concerned. And there's no violation if there is no intrusive procedure, and the only thing that can be accomplished is to prevent a violation of someone else's right to consent. If the woman doesn't plan on violating someone else's consent, then in no way would she be harmed by the procedure. And it could just as easily be done by sterilising men, combined with confiscating all donated sperm, although you like to sensationalise it more by posing it as a violation against women. I don't support canibalisation or gutting of the mentally ill; I believe that people should have the right to commit consensual acts that I would personally find disgusting and abhorrent. It was actually the man who was cannibalised who posted an advert to request for someone to eat his penis.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 2:39:47 GMT
tpfkar If anyone who asks for assistance to die is mentally ill by definition, then why would this not apply to the terminally ill, who would usually also be capable of "accomphing the trivial if actually decided physical act", but with far less risk than those who aren't terminally ill? There's no reason other than bigotry why we shouldn't trust that repeated requests for assistance in dying reflects the true values and desires of the person concerned. And there's no violation if there is no intrusive procedure, and the only thing that can be accomplished is to prevent a violation of someone else's right to consent. If the woman doesn't plan on violating someone else's consent, then in no way would she be harmed by the procedure. And it could just as easily be done by sterilising men, combined with confiscating all donated sperm, although you like to sensationalise it more by posing it as a violation against women. I don't support canibalisation or gutting of the mentally ill; I believe that people should have the right to commit consensual acts that I would personally find disgusting and abhorrent. It was actually the man who was cannibalised who posted an advert to request for someone to eat his penis. Because of course there's no downside to it for the terminal even if they are mentally ill. And there's every reason why we should not trust the pleads of overtly deranged psychopaths who dream of violating women's reproductive tracts and nuking the world, among others' lesser categories of mental illness as evidenced by them asking to be put down at all. And your "no violation if no intrusive procedure", for your deviant-version-Arlon definition of intrusive, is spoken like a true homicidal psychopathic madman. An last, nice try, but the phrase was "the right of deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill". Which your sick shattered-thinking lunacy-emitting self does. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We Should
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 4:43:36 GMT
tpfkar If anyone who asks for assistance to die is mentally ill by definition, then why would this not apply to the terminally ill, who would usually also be capable of "accomphing the trivial if actually decided physical act", but with far less risk than those who aren't terminally ill? There's no reason other than bigotry why we shouldn't trust that repeated requests for assistance in dying reflects the true values and desires of the person concerned. And there's no violation if there is no intrusive procedure, and the only thing that can be accomplished is to prevent a violation of someone else's right to consent. If the woman doesn't plan on violating someone else's consent, then in no way would she be harmed by the procedure. And it could just as easily be done by sterilising men, combined with confiscating all donated sperm, although you like to sensationalise it more by posing it as a violation against women. I don't support canibalisation or gutting of the mentally ill; I believe that people should have the right to commit consensual acts that I would personally find disgusting and abhorrent. It was actually the man who was cannibalised who posted an advert to request for someone to eat his penis. Because of course there's no downside to it for the terminal even if they are mentally ill. And there's every reason why we should not trust the pleads of overtly deranged psychopaths who dream of violating women's reproductive tracts and nuking the world, among others' lesser categories of mental illness as evidenced by them asking to be put down at all. And your "no violation if no intrusive procedure", for your deviant-version-Arlon definition of intrusive, is spoken like a true homicidal psychopathic madman. An last, nice try, but the phrase was "the right of deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill". Which your sick shattered-thinking lunacy-emitting self does. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldThere's no downside to it for those who aren't terminally ill. They should be the ones who ought to be the arbiters of how much future suffering is worth the ever fading chance of recovery, and they can never lose by being released from their own suffering at their own request. It's only by staying alive that they can be deprived of the blissful halcyon future that you think awaits all mentally ill. For those who don't have a desire to impose life on others, there is no violation and nothing to be worried about. It was the cannibalised person who actually submitted an advert to request for someone to eat his penis; not a case of a predator looking to ensnare some mentally ill person who was vulnerable to suggestion. And yes, it was a revolting act and is a true reflection of the sordid stuff that life is really made out of and a reflection of what you wish to preserve.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 5:05:23 GMT
tpfkar Because of course there's no downside to it for the terminal even if they are mentally ill. And there's every reason why we should not trust the pleads of overtly deranged psychopaths who dream of violating women's reproductive tracts and nuking the world, among others' lesser categories of mental illness as evidenced by them asking to be put down at all. And your "no violation if no intrusive procedure", for your deviant-version-Arlon definition of intrusive, is spoken like a true homicidal psychopathic madman. An last, nice try, but the phrase was "the right of deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill". Which your sick shattered-thinking lunacy-emitting self does. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldThere's no downside to it for those who aren't terminally ill. They should be the ones who ought to be the arbiters of how much future suffering is worth the ever fading chance of recovery, and they can never lose by being released from their own suffering at their own request. It's only by staying alive that they can be deprived of the blissful halcyon future that you think awaits all mentally ill. For those who don't have a desire to impose life on others, there is no violation and nothing to be worried about. It was the cannibalised person who actually submitted an advert to request for someone to eat his penis; not a case of a predator looking to ensnare some mentally ill person who was vulnerable to suggestion. And yes, it was a revolting act and is a true reflection of the sordid stuff that life is really made out of and a reflection of what you wish to preserve. Only for the psychotic murderous psychopaths who think that murdering someone without their ever knowing it isn't harming them, and that like-minded homicidal deviants should be able to slice off the testicles of the mentally ill, serve them to them, and then gut them, if the poor victim "assents" to the gruesome assault. Among a raft of other utterly deranged ideas and rabidly demented assertions. All driven by your holy crusade to murderously corral everyone to the Objective Perfection of the cult-sought halcyon "harm-free" afterlife. There's no such thing as to "impose life" on others, that's simply more of your wholly witless shrill rape-pedophilia-violence screech obsession that stems straight from your violating psychopathic personality. And yes, your sick self supports the right of like-minded deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill if the poor mentally ill victims "assent" to it. The rest of us keep working on improving things for all and don't teenage nihilist murderous fantasize-dream of castrated & gutted mentally ill, violated females, and mass murdering. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 13:27:01 GMT
tpfkar There's no downside to it for those who aren't terminally ill. They should be the ones who ought to be the arbiters of how much future suffering is worth the ever fading chance of recovery, and they can never lose by being released from their own suffering at their own request. It's only by staying alive that they can be deprived of the blissful halcyon future that you think awaits all mentally ill. For those who don't have a desire to impose life on others, there is no violation and nothing to be worried about. It was the cannibalised person who actually submitted an advert to request for someone to eat his penis; not a case of a predator looking to ensnare some mentally ill person who was vulnerable to suggestion. And yes, it was a revolting act and is a true reflection of the sordid stuff that life is really made out of and a reflection of what you wish to preserve. Only for the psychotic murderous psychopaths who think that murdering someone without their ever knowing it isn't harming them, and that like-minded homicidal deviants should be able to slice off the testicles of the mentally ill, serve them to them, and then gut them, if the poor victim "assents" to the gruesome assault. Among a raft of other utterly deranged ideas and rabidly demented assertions. All driven by your holy crusade to murderously corral everyone to the Objective Perfection of the cult-sought halcyon "harm-free" afterlife. There's no such thing as to "impose life" on others, that's simply more of your wholly witless shrill rape-pedophilia-violence screech obsession that stems straight from your violating psychopathic personality. And yes, your sick self supports the right of like-minded deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill if the poor mentally ill victims "assent" to it. The rest of us keep working on improving things for all and don't teenage nihilist murderous fantasize-dream of castrated & gutted mentally ill, violated females, and mass murdering. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.Like I've mentioned before, there are ways of condemning that kind of activity without falsely invoking the term 'harm'; and the reason that the murdered person would have been violated would be because they would be presumed to be wanting to continue living. There are people who would justifiably feel aggrieved and 'harmed' by such an action; those who cared about the person who was killed. Just like the religious right wing, you're drawing all sorts of extreme comparisons and then claiming that those cases are the same. There are good reasons why society should not tolerate assassins operating capriciously to murder random individuals, but no sound reasons why a comprehensive program of assisted suicide should not be rolled out for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think that the future prospects are worth continuing for. This may ultimately reduce the overall suicide rate by allowing suicidal people to access psychiatric services without fear of imprisonment and being stigmatised for life. If you're forced to take what someone thrusts upon you and it ends up being cumbersome, then that is an imposition. It doesn't matter whether you frame it as a 'wonderful gift' in order to justify your own past actions; your kids would never have been deprived of anything that you thought you could give them. I abhor violence as much as anyone. I don't even like watching violence in movies or on TV, and I don't understand the mentality behind wanting someone to chop off your penis and eat it, but the man made his choice and it wasn't as though he was talked into something he didn't want by someone who exploited his vulnerability. I'm also not sure if it was ever confirmed that the man was mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 13:54:37 GMT
tpfkar Only for the psychotic murderous psychopaths who think that murdering someone without their ever knowing it isn't harming them, and that like-minded homicidal deviants should be able to slice off the testicles of the mentally ill, serve them to them, and then gut them, if the poor victim "assents" to the gruesome assault. Among a raft of other utterly deranged ideas and rabidly demented assertions. All driven by your holy crusade to murderously corral everyone to the Objective Perfection of the cult-sought halcyon "harm-free" afterlife. There's no such thing as to "impose life" on others, that's simply more of your wholly witless shrill rape-pedophilia-violence screech obsession that stems straight from your violating psychopathic personality. And yes, your sick self supports the right of like-minded deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill if the poor mentally ill victims "assent" to it. The rest of us keep working on improving things for all and don't teenage nihilist murderous fantasize-dream of castrated & gutted mentally ill, violated females, and mass murdering. Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.Like I've mentioned before, there are ways of condemning that kind of activity without falsely invoking the term 'harm'; and the reason that the murdered person would have been violated would be because they would be presumed to be wanting to continue living. There are people who would justifiably feel aggrieved and 'harmed' by such an action; those who cared about the person who was killed. Just like the religious right wing, you're drawing all sorts of extreme comparisons and then claiming that those cases are the same. There are good reasons why society should not tolerate assassins operating capriciously to murder random individuals, but no sound reasons why a comprehensive program of assisted suicide should not be rolled out for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think that the future prospects are worth continuing for. This may ultimately reduce the overall suicide rate by allowing suicidal people to access psychiatric services without fear of imprisonment and being stigmatised for life. If you're forced to take what someone thrusts upon you and it ends up being cumbersome, then that is an imposition. It doesn't matter whether you frame it as a 'wonderful gift' in order to justify your own past actions; your kids would never have been deprived of anything that you thought you could give them. I abhor violence as much as anyone. I don't even like watching violence in movies or on TV, and I don't understand the mentality behind wanting someone to chop off your penis and eat it, but the man made his choice and it wasn't as though he was talked into something he didn't want by someone who exploited his vulnerability. I'm also not sure if it was ever confirmed that the man was mentally ill. Like I've mentioned before, you babble freely. It is patently deranged to hold that just because someone has been murdered instantly, they aren't harmed. The shattered ramblings of the murderous psychopath. Along with wanting like-minded deviants to be able to be free to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill because the poor victim "assented", wanting to violate women, and of course nuke everybody, among your many other freely cackled sick derangements and freely spilled irrationalities. No child by way of birth is forced to take anything thrust upon them; they are given the option to experience this great ride or to reject it, regardless of your twitted overwrought bastardizations of language and pathological morbidity and malice. "Never being deprived anything" as a justification for wiping them out is just as psychopathically deranged as framing not killing creatures as an "imposition" as opposed to the forced killing of them and gross violations of the mother. Sure, you abhor violence yet you out loud dream of force-sterilizing mothers and mass-murdering all via nuking the world or other means. The fact that you question the mental illness of anyone who assents to being sexually mutilated and shared-cannibalized and then gutted in a ghastly Internet tête-à-tête only highlights the need for your separation from greater society. And you in fact do support the right of like-minded deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill if the poor victims "assent" to it, regardless of whether you're too timid to personnally form intimate bonds either of the sexually homicidal cannibal kind or of those less perversely abusive & murderous. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 20:39:25 GMT
tpfkar Like I've mentioned before, there are ways of condemning that kind of activity without falsely invoking the term 'harm'; and the reason that the murdered person would have been violated would be because they would be presumed to be wanting to continue living. There are people who would justifiably feel aggrieved and 'harmed' by such an action; those who cared about the person who was killed. Just like the religious right wing, you're drawing all sorts of extreme comparisons and then claiming that those cases are the same. There are good reasons why society should not tolerate assassins operating capriciously to murder random individuals, but no sound reasons why a comprehensive program of assisted suicide should not be rolled out for the benefit of anyone who doesn't think that the future prospects are worth continuing for. This may ultimately reduce the overall suicide rate by allowing suicidal people to access psychiatric services without fear of imprisonment and being stigmatised for life. If you're forced to take what someone thrusts upon you and it ends up being cumbersome, then that is an imposition. It doesn't matter whether you frame it as a 'wonderful gift' in order to justify your own past actions; your kids would never have been deprived of anything that you thought you could give them. I abhor violence as much as anyone. I don't even like watching violence in movies or on TV, and I don't understand the mentality behind wanting someone to chop off your penis and eat it, but the man made his choice and it wasn't as though he was talked into something he didn't want by someone who exploited his vulnerability. I'm also not sure if it was ever confirmed that the man was mentally ill. Like I've mentioned before, you babble freely. It is patently deranged to hold that just because someone has been murdered instantly, they aren't harmed. The shattered ramblings of the murderous psychopath. Along with wanting like-minded deviants to be able to be free to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill because the poor victim "assented", wanting to violate women, and of course nuke everybody, among your many other freely cackled sick derangements and freely spilled irrationalities. No child by way of birth is forced to take anything thrust upon them; they are given the option to experience this great ride or to reject it, regardless of your twitted overwrought bastardizations of language and pathological morbidity and malice. "Never being deprived anything" as a justification for wiping them out is just as psychopathically deranged as framing not killing creatures as an "imposition" as opposed to the forced killing of them and gross violations of the mother. Sure, you abhor violence yet you out loud dream of force-sterilizing mothers and mass-murdering all via nuking the world or other means. The fact that you question the mental illness of anyone who assents to being sexually mutilated and shared-cannibalized and then gutted in a ghastly Internet tête-à-tête only highlights the need for your separation from greater society. And you in fact do support the right of like-minded deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill if the poor victims "assent" to it, regardless of whether you're too timid to personnally form intimate bonds either of the sexually homicidal cannibal kind or of those less perversely abusive & murderous. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I have recently opted NOT to interact with Mic anymore on this generally ridiculous illogical yet distressing topic because I seriously believe that Mic is genuinely mentally ill. I am a slow learner after 23 pages here and many years of similar nonsense. At first it amused me, butt his recent deterioration into the above kind of sick fuck ramblings concerns me and it seems that such discussions give him his jollies, and encourages greater excesses. What started out as his usual 'nihilistic illogical ravings, has turned really sick and nasty. What you do, is of course entirely up to you butt to encourage this depraved discussion, to my mind is both counterproductive and only seems to encourage his extremism. Also I feel that the Administration here has been very forbearing with him so I guess no-one has reported this recent depravity. If he continues, it will be me.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 20:48:35 GMT
tpfkar Like I've mentioned before, you babble freely. It is patently deranged to hold that just because someone has been murdered instantly, they aren't harmed. The shattered ramblings of the murderous psychopath. Along with wanting like-minded deviants to be able to be free to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill because the poor victim "assented", wanting to violate women, and of course nuke everybody, among your many other freely cackled sick derangements and freely spilled irrationalities. No child by way of birth is forced to take anything thrust upon them; they are given the option to experience this great ride or to reject it, regardless of your twitted overwrought bastardizations of language and pathological morbidity and malice. "Never being deprived anything" as a justification for wiping them out is just as psychopathically deranged as framing not killing creatures as an "imposition" as opposed to the forced killing of them and gross violations of the mother. Sure, you abhor violence yet you out loud dream of force-sterilizing mothers and mass-murdering all via nuking the world or other means. The fact that you question the mental illness of anyone who assents to being sexually mutilated and shared-cannibalized and then gutted in a ghastly Internet tête-à-tête only highlights the need for your separation from greater society. And you in fact do support the right of like-minded deviants to sexually mutilate and gut the mentally ill if the poor victims "assent" to it, regardless of whether you're too timid to personnally form intimate bonds either of the sexually homicidal cannibal kind or of those less perversely abusive & murderous. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I have recently opted NOT to interact with Mic anymore on this generally ridiculous illogical yet distressing topic because I seriously believe that Mic is genuinely mentally ill. I am a slow learner after 23 pages here and many years of similar nonsense. At first it amused me, butt his recent deterioration into the above kind of sick fuck ramblings concerns me and it seems that such discussions give him his jollies, and encourages greater excesses. What started out as his usual 'nihilistic illogical ravings, has turned really sick and nasty. What you do, is of course entirely up to you butt to encourage this depraved discussion, to my mind is both counterproductive and only seems to encourage his extremism. Also I feel that the Administration here has been very forbearing with him so I guess no-one has reported this recent depravity. If he continues, it will be me. If nasty ludicrously-projecting patent crazy was a board crime the rolls would be 90% smaller. And if I didn't have nasty hypocritical boneheadedness to respond to, my posts would be less by the same scope. Does Free Will Exist?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 21:28:41 GMT
tpfkar I have recently opted NOT to interact with Mic anymore on this generally ridiculous illogical yet distressing topic because I seriously believe that Mic is genuinely mentally ill. I am a slow learner after 23 pages here and many years of similar nonsense. At first it amused me, butt his recent deterioration into the above kind of sick fuck ramblings concerns me and it seems that such discussions give him his jollies, and encourages greater excesses. What started out as his usual 'nihilistic illogical ravings, has turned really sick and nasty. What you do, is of course entirely up to you butt to encourage this depraved discussion, to my mind is both counterproductive and only seems to encourage his extremism. Also I feel that the Administration here has been very forbearing with him so I guess no-one has reported this recent depravity. If he continues, it will be me. If nasty ludicrously-projecting patent crazy was a board crime the rolls would be 90% smaller. And if I didn't have nasty hypocritical boneheadedness to respond to, my posts would be less by the same scope. Does Free Will Exist?No, my issue with this new escalation by this 'nasty ludicrously-projecting patent crazy' is against common decency on a board of this nature because the posts head towards pornographic thrill kills, torture and mass murder. You are complicit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 21:36:52 GMT
tpfkar If nasty ludicrously-projecting patent crazy was a board crime the rolls would be 90% smaller. And if I didn't have nasty hypocritical boneheadedness to respond to, my posts would be less by the same scope. Does Free Will Exist?No, my issue with this new escalation by this 'nasty ludicrously-projecting patent crazy' is against common decency on a board of this nature because the posts head towards pornographic thrill kills, torture and mass murder. You are complicit. You and your phallic gotos aren't pristine. If you can't handle getting down to brass tacks of what's actually been suggested, avert your delicate gazes. clutching my pearls
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 22:30:13 GMT
tpfkar No, my issue with this new escalation by this 'nasty ludicrously-projecting patent crazy' is against common decency on a board of this nature because the posts head towards pornographic thrill kills, torture and mass murder. You are complicit. You and your phallic gotos aren't pristine. If you can't handle getting down to brass tacks of what's actually been suggested, avert your delicate gazes. clutching my pearlsI just reported it and before doing so checked on ProBoard's Terms of Service. IMHO it contravenes, butt we will see what John and the admins think. You both went too far. I don't know what you mean by 'phallic gotos'. I am here for philosophical and general discussion on religious and other topics.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 22:37:26 GMT
tpfkar You and your phallic gotos aren't pristine. If you can't handle getting down to brass tacks of what's actually been suggested, avert your delicate gazes. clutching my pearlsI just reported it and before doing so checked on ProBoard's Terms of Service. IMHO it contravenes, butt we will see what John and the admins think. You both went too far. I don't know what you mean by 'phallic gotos'. I am here for philosophical and general discussion on religious and other topics. Where you have and tend to plummet in gun threads. And you've been no wallflower in this thread, and if you think explicitly delineating what somebody's advocating is worse than explicitly delineating someone's attributes, which you've done freely, I can only say that although your hypocrisy puts you right at home here, your constitution does not. Electric Six - \Everybody Down at Mcdonalzz
|
|