|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 22:59:18 GMT
tpfkar I 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 McdonalzzYou are being apologist and also missing the point. There is no need to explicitly delineate pornographic mental images of torture, mass sterilisation and mass murder. I pulled the plug on my contribution when it got this low yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 23:02:42 GMT
tpfkar 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 McdonalzzYou are being apologist and also missing the point. There is no need to explicitly delineate pornographic mental images of torture, mass sterilisation and mass murder. I pulled the plug on my contribution when it got this low yesterday. An apologist for what? Frank talk? What's "pornographic" to you? Actual events? Or when you went on and on pornographically about how people who own guns treat them and do with them? I'm Afraid of Americans
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 23:32:43 GMT
tpfkar You are being apologist and also missing the point. There is no need to explicitly delineate pornographic mental images of torture, mass sterilisation and mass murder. I pulled the plug on my contribution when it got this low yesterday. An apologist for what? Frank talk? What's "pornographic" to you? Actual events? Or when you went on and on pornographically about how people who own guns treat them and do with them? I'm Afraid of AmericansAfter this I am not prepared to bump and perpetuate this thread any further. I have NEVER talked 'pornographically' about guns except to point out their undeniable ability to injure and kill in the wrong hands which are most people. This thread was quite different with you and Mic getting their jollies from pornographic descriptions of both crimes against individuals, cannibalism, torture, mass murder and mass sterilisation. I would prefer, as we are, to discuss other subjects on other threads. Let's leave this here.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 6, 2018 23:42:24 GMT
tpfkar An apologist for what? Frank talk? What's "pornographic" to you? Actual events? Or when you went on and on pornographically about how people who own guns treat them and do with them? I'm Afraid of AmericansAfter this I am not prepared to bump and perpetuate this thread any further. I have NEVER talked 'pornographically' about guns except to point out their undeniable ability to injure and kill in the wrong hands which are most people. This thread was quite different with you and Mic getting their jollies from pornographic descriptions of both crimes against individuals, cannibalism, torture, mass murder and mass sterilisation. I would prefer, as we are, to discuss other subjects on other threads. Let's leave this here. I know, I know. It's always different for the guy doing it. Regardless of your convenient memory and very particular "aghast", you went on about gun as phallus and what gun owners like to do with them. I remember very well as we went on some time about it, and there too you complained about tone back after your pornographic slanders. And you may be getting "jollies" here as well as with your gun as phallus use shame attempts I guess, but I just like cutting through the pure inane bull, as in yours here. And I'll leave it here, as in every case, just as soon as you stop posting raw hypocritical silliness. Woah, nelly!
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Feb 8, 2018 16:58:43 GMT
For most of us, yes. But it shouldn't be. It's hard because the powerful/greedy people of this world make it so.
The world can provide all that we need to all have great lives, but these horrible people ruin it for us all.
Why is this thread in the religion board?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 17:34:46 GMT
For most of us, yes. But it shouldn't be. It's hard because the powerful/greedy people of this world make it so. The world can provide all that we need to all have great lives, but these horrible people ruin it for us all. Why is this thread in the religion board? The reason why the greedy people are hoarding all the resources for themselves is due to, by dint of our biological inheritance, no matter how much people have, they always want more. Life is an inherently unwinnable game. For some at least, and that will always mean that as long as we are biological creatures, there will always be discontent.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 8, 2018 18:31:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 11, 2018 23:57:27 GMT
tpfkar Your misconstruing the facts doesn't really alter them. Reproductive rights are correctly regarded as a critical component of bodily autonomy, and you are not going to be permitted to take them away from people by any means whatsoever. That's really the end of the discussion. I don't deny that reproductive rights are currently considered to be a component of bodily autonomy, but my argument presents good reasons why it shouldn't be. People should have rights over their own body in as far as they aren't endangering or needlessly posing a harm to someone else. By dragging someone else into existence to accompany you on your forced march, you are endangering that other person and your action is the root source of all the harm that they will experience. And I personally will never have the ability to take away anyone's reproductive rights; but it's possible that those with the power will be able to do this without the consent and/or knowledge of the general population. Who is the "someone else" they're endangering? How are they endangering them? You and your Arlon vocabulary. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIME
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 0:05:14 GMT
tpfkar I don't deny that reproductive rights are currently considered to be a component of bodily autonomy, but my argument presents good reasons why it shouldn't be. People should have rights over their own body in as far as they aren't endangering or needlessly posing a harm to someone else. By dragging someone else into existence to accompany you on your forced march, you are endangering that other person and your action is the root source of all the harm that they will experience. And I personally will never have the ability to take away anyone's reproductive rights; but it's possible that those with the power will be able to do this without the consent and/or knowledge of the general population. Who is the "someone else" they're endangering? How are they endangering them? You and your Arlon vocabulary. Bill Gates: Why I Decided To Edit an Issue of TIMEThe person being endangered is the one who comes into existence to face great danger. And obviously, the act of creating that person is what creates the scenario where someone is placed into harm's way, as being alive is the source of all possible harms and dangers.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 0:14:08 GMT
tpfkar Dead is invulnerable to harm; and nobody needs to be protected from not being able to be harmed; least of all when that's what they've asked for. There's nothing hypocritical about remaining alive when the option to die peacefully and with absolutely no risk has never been available. But even if I were remaining alive because I wanted to be alive, it still wouldn't be hypocritical, because I'm referring to people in situations where that very clearly isn't the case. I'm glad that you at least think that there are some cases of mental illness in which the person should be permitted to exercise control over their body. That makes you more rational than cupcakes, not that this is a hard bar to clear. But I hope that as a species, we get over our atavistic and irrational cultural and instinctual aversion to death to the extent where most people can perceive what an absurd idea it is that people who are desperate not to be harmed need to be protected from not being harmed. I don't see what can ever possibly be bad about not being harmed and not having any desires that need to be fulfilled, especially when the alternative is overwhelmingly likely to be one that would be torture. I think that if most people had to experience paranoid schizophrenia for 1 week, then had a 1 week period where they were without it but knew that they either had the choice between rational suicide or having to live the rest of their lives with paranoid schizophrenia, most would choose suicide. Therefore the presumption ought to be that continuing to live with debilitating illnesses is a choice that most people would not make, and this would support the patient's own request to be assisted to die. The current situation is that people who have no concept of what it's like to suffer in that way are getting to decide for others that it's better to suffer that way for an entire life than to have the suffering swiftly and peacefully ended, as per the requests of the individual. There's no rational foundation for this belief. The "non-violent" guy who'd nuke the world if he could and who while supposedly believing no real choice exists chooses to frantically try to get peeps to chose differently, and characterizes giving birth as variously imposition or violence to a child while espousing forced sterilization & termination of all, grading rationality. Death as the solution to the ups and downs of life is the stuff of playtime supervillain psychopaths. And how was (is?) paranoid schizophrenia for you? Refraining from killing the deranged, distraught, disturbed, etc., and instead treating to ameliorate symptoms is both eminently rational and supremely empathetic. Entertaining the ideas of those crazies who consider successful treatment to be "brainwashing" would be the highly irrational bit. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 0:48:43 GMT
tpfkar Dead is invulnerable to harm; and nobody needs to be protected from not being able to be harmed; least of all when that's what they've asked for. There's nothing hypocritical about remaining alive when the option to die peacefully and with absolutely no risk has never been available. But even if I were remaining alive because I wanted to be alive, it still wouldn't be hypocritical, because I'm referring to people in situations where that very clearly isn't the case. I'm glad that you at least think that there are some cases of mental illness in which the person should be permitted to exercise control over their body. That makes you more rational than cupcakes, not that this is a hard bar to clear. But I hope that as a species, we get over our atavistic and irrational cultural and instinctual aversion to death to the extent where most people can perceive what an absurd idea it is that people who are desperate not to be harmed need to be protected from not being harmed. I don't see what can ever possibly be bad about not being harmed and not having any desires that need to be fulfilled, especially when the alternative is overwhelmingly likely to be one that would be torture. I think that if most people had to experience paranoid schizophrenia for 1 week, then had a 1 week period where they were without it but knew that they either had the choice between rational suicide or having to live the rest of their lives with paranoid schizophrenia, most would choose suicide. Therefore the presumption ought to be that continuing to live with debilitating illnesses is a choice that most people would not make, and this would support the patient's own request to be assisted to die. The current situation is that people who have no concept of what it's like to suffer in that way are getting to decide for others that it's better to suffer that way for an entire life than to have the suffering swiftly and peacefully ended, as per the requests of the individual. There's no rational foundation for this belief. The "non-violent" guy who'd nuke the world if he could and who while supposedly believing no real choice exists chooses to frantically try to get peeps to chose differently, and characterizes giving birth as variously imposition or violence to a child while espousing forced sterilization & termination of all, grading rationality. Death as the solution to the ups and downs of life is the stuff of playtime supervillain psychopaths. And how was (is?) paranoid schizophrenia for you? Refraining from killing the deranged, distraught, disturbed, etc., and instead treating to ameliorate symptoms is both eminently rational and supremely empathetic. Entertaining the ideas of those crazies who consider successful treatment to be "brainwashing" would be the highly irrational bit. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.Death should be an option that is allowed to be considered by anything, and the government should not have the right to interfere in any way, or have laws which mean that the individual is not able to seek assistance in dying. 'Brainwashing' referred to the kind of therapy used to convince people that life is meaningful and worth continuing with, not pharmaceutical treatment to cure actual psychosis, hallucinations and volatility of mood.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 0:49:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 0:53:52 GMT
No non existent persons. Actual persons who have been born and who can be harmed. Terimination is not an imposition if the terminated does not consciously register what is happening. Extermination would be a form of violence, but that would only be with a view to prevent future acts of aggression (and ultimately reduce the overall death count, because those who are never born cannot die).
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 1:00:33 GMT
tpfkar No non existent persons. Actual persons who have been born and who can be harmed. Terimination is not an imposition if the terminated does not consciously register what is happening. Extermination would be a form of violence, but that would only be with a view to prevent future acts of aggression (and ultimately reduce the overall death count, because those who are never born cannot die).' Righto, terminating, even in violation of the mother, is not imposition, but letting them decide once they're capable is "imposition", "violence", "rape". This if fun. Keep dreaming of nukes! 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 12, 2018 1:04:02 GMT
tpfkar No non existent persons. Actual persons who have been born and who can be harmed. Terimination is not an imposition if the terminated does not consciously register what is happening. Extermination would be a form of violence, but that would only be with a view to prevent future acts of aggression (and ultimately reduce the overall death count, because those who are never born cannot die).' Righto, terminating, even in violation of the mother, is not imposition, but letting them decide once they're capable is "imposition", "violence", "rape". This if fun. Keep dreaming of nukes! They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.There's no rational argument for bringing someone into existence so that they can "decide once they're capable" (but will of course, have to act without any assistance and often in contravention of strict social mores, and will also need to suffer sufficiently up to the point of choosing, and may never be capable of the act, etc), when the (socially limited) choice itself is only an imperfect solution to a problem that was created by bringing them into existence in the first place. And nobody who wants to impose on someone who cannot consent has any business to complain about a 'violation' of their freedom to do so.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 1:05:32 GMT
tpfkar The "non-violent" guy who'd nuke the world if he could and who while supposedly believing no real choice exists chooses to frantically try to get peeps to chose differently, and characterizes giving birth as variously imposition or violence to a child while espousing forced sterilization & termination of all, grading rationality. Death as the solution to the ups and downs of life is the stuff of playtime supervillain psychopaths. And how was (is?) paranoid schizophrenia for you? Refraining from killing the deranged, distraught, disturbed, etc., and instead treating to ameliorate symptoms is both eminently rational and supremely empathetic. Entertaining the ideas of those crazies who consider successful treatment to be "brainwashing" would be the highly irrational bit. If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.Death should be an option that is allowed to be considered by anything, and the government should not have the right to interfere in any way, or have laws which mean that the individual is not able to seek assistance in dying. 'Brainwashing' referred to the kind of therapy used to convince people that life is meaningful and worth continuing with, not pharmaceutical treatment to cure actual psychosis, hallucinations and volatility of mood. Nope, you guys who want the mentally ill available for sexual mutilation, cannibalizing, and killing just get mocked. And I understand you think that helping the mentally ill find life meaningful to be "brainwashing" and "violence", or "rape", "upholstery" or whatever. 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 12, 2018 8:44:20 GMT
tpfkar Death should be an option that is allowed to be considered by anything, and the government should not have the right to interfere in any way, or have laws which mean that the individual is not able to seek assistance in dying. 'Brainwashing' referred to the kind of therapy used to convince people that life is meaningful and worth continuing with, not pharmaceutical treatment to cure actual psychosis, hallucinations and volatility of mood. Nope, you guys who want the mentally ill available for sexual mutilation, cannibalizing, and killing just get mocked. And I understand you think that helping the mentally ill find life meaningful to be "brainwashing" and "violence", or "rape", "upholstery" or whatever. Harvard Professor Steven Pinker on Why We Refuse to See the Bright Side, Even Though We ShouldI don't want the mentally ill to be 'available' for any of that. I think that their fetishes are their business. And I would prefer to stop producing more mentally ill people. Trying to counsel someone that life is meaningful is a case of pushing a philosophy. Nevertheless, my suggestion for right to die laws still privileges those pro-life views, whilst giving people the right to be assisted to die.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 10:19:25 GMT
I don't want the mentally ill to be 'available' for any of that. I think that their fetishes are their business. And I would prefer to stop producing more mentally ill people. Trying to counsel someone that life is meaningful is a case of pushing a philosophy. Nevertheless, my suggestion for right to die laws still privileges those pro-life views, whilst giving people the right to be assisted to die. You just contradicted yourself (again). You said multiple times that if the mentally ill "assented" that fellow psychopaths should be able to sexually mutilate, eat while still alive, and kill them by gutting them. In which one of your "Objective" worlds is wanting them to be available for such horrific abuse by "consenting third parties" not wanting them available for it? And, right, successfully treating the mentally ill for their incapable expressions of self-harm is "pushing a philosophy", "brainwashing", and surely, attacking them, martyring them, or immolating them by violently sacrificing their sacred wish to die with fire, yet actually holding them down and killing them while they struggle ferociously against it is "treatment" because they "likely" "had no idea" that what they were demurely fighting tooth and nail against was actually a trip to a cult paradise. Your suggestion of "right to die laws" is just more demented psychopathy couched in more ludicrous/cynical euphemism. Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 6:42:39 GMT
I don't want the mentally ill to be 'available' for any of that. I think that their fetishes are their business. And I would prefer to stop producing more mentally ill people. Trying to counsel someone that life is meaningful is a case of pushing a philosophy. Nevertheless, my suggestion for right to die laws still privileges those pro-life views, whilst giving people the right to be assisted to die. You just contradicted yourself (again). You said multiple times that if the mentally ill "assented" that fellow psychopaths should be able to sexually mutilate, eat while still alive, and kill them by gutting them. In which one of your "Objective" worlds is wanting them to be available for such horrific abuse by "consenting third parties" not wanting them available for it? And, right, successfully treating the mentally ill for their incapable expressions of self-harm is "pushing a philosophy", "brainwashing", and surely, attacking them, martyring them, or immolating them by violently sacrificing their sacred wish to die with fire, yet actually holding them down and killing them while they struggle ferociously against it is "treatment" because they "likely" "had no idea" that what they were demurely fighting tooth and nail against was actually a trip to a cult paradise. Your suggestion of "right to die laws" is just more demented psychopathy couched in more ludicrous/cynical euphemism. Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.I'm not, because I personally don't like the idea of cannibalistic sex fetish meetings, so I don't 'want' mentally ill to be 'available' for that. I personally err on the side of supporting bodily autonomy, but I wouldn't campaign on behalf of cannibals. On the other hand, I strongly feel that a comfortable, easy and fail-proof should be a fundamental right for all humans; having been forced into a harmful existence without consent. You oppose it for religious reasons, and cannot give a single rational reason why suicide can ever be an irrational answer to the predicament that those people find themselves in. But instead of admitting to the fact that you hold humankind up as divine ( if I'm one of them, then my species must be divine), your prejudice against mentally ill people provides a convenient fig leaf.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 8:50:35 GMT
tpfkar You just contradicted yourself (again). You said multiple times that if the mentally ill "assented" that fellow psychopaths should be able to sexually mutilate, eat while still alive, and kill them by gutting them. In which one of your "Objective" worlds is wanting them to be available for such horrific abuse by "consenting third parties" not wanting them available for it? And, right, successfully treating the mentally ill for their incapable expressions of self-harm is "pushing a philosophy", "brainwashing", and surely, attacking them, martyring them, or immolating them by violently sacrificing their sacred wish to die with fire, yet actually holding them down and killing them while they struggle ferociously against it is "treatment" because they "likely" "had no idea" that what they were demurely fighting tooth and nail against was actually a trip to a cult paradise. Your suggestion of "right to die laws" is just more demented psychopathy couched in more ludicrous/cynical euphemism. Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.I'm not, because I personally don't like the idea of cannibalistic sex fetish meetings, so I don't 'want' mentally ill to be 'available' for that. I personally err on the side of supporting bodily autonomy, but I wouldn't campaign on behalf of cannibals. On the other hand, I strongly feel that a comfortable, easy and fail-proof should be a fundamental right for all humans; having been forced into a harmful existence without consent. You oppose it for religious reasons, and cannot give a single rational reason why suicide can ever be an irrational answer to the predicament that those people find themselves in. But instead of admitting to the fact that you hold humankind up as divine ( if I'm one of them, then my species must be divine), your prejudice against mentally ill people provides a convenient fig leaf. You either want them to be available when they assent, or you do not. You've already said you do, regardless of how much you cower and quibble more here. And you again reiterate it in the same breath via your "support bodily autonomy" for the mentally ill to be sexually mutilated, cannibalized and gutted by like-minded psychopaths. Humans aren't "forced" into into anything without consent, they're given the great option to choose for which they are massively grateful overwhelmingly, and in fact overwhelmingly also choose the experience vs. the early out. Nonexistent creatures aren't anything anythinged, and once extant then of course violently terminating them and violating the mother is certainly massive abuse, while simply letting the extant creatures decide once capable is certainly not, regardless of your nuke-powered wailing arlonitis. And of course you concoct externally and comically project your fervid internal religious passions without semblance of restraint; your aches for perfection, your fellow faithfuls' extremism toward procreation, and not last and not least your elevation of religion as the source of good as opposed to just being the product of the ideas of man (valuation is divine only to those wed to divinity). The mentally ill should not be abused as you wish for them to be mutilated and cannibalized "if they assent to it", and the mentally competent can easily accomplish the cessation of the fragile human system once/if they've actually decided. Suicide is a rational answer for those who can rationally arrive at such a conclusion; those who act out and involve the restraints of society, as well as those who demand that society should put down the mentally ill who cannot manage their own thought processes, explicitly demonstrate their own mental unfitness. Which is only reinforced by the display of such other utter derangements as holding that blowing someone's brains out instantly isn't harming them, choosing to desperately attempt to get others to choose differently while simultaneously "holding" that real choice doesn't actually exist, as well as continual ludicrous lugubrious distortions of language and thoroughly entertaining projections, religious and other. And you further give your perversity away with your characterizing of successful treatment as "brainwashing" and your predatory and narcissistic desires to force violate women and mass murder countless. 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.
|
|