|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 0:56:59 GMT
tpfkar The only "religious dimension" is your awe and reverence of religion, borne of your own rabid religiosity and further evidenced by your continual cult framings. Regardless of your supplication to it, religion is the product of man and not the source of ideas like valuing life and protecting the vulnerable. Of course restrictions on third parties from sexually mutilating, eating and killing the mentally ill is not "restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence", it's protection from the murderous sexual psychopaths about. If one of sound mind has truly decided to end their own life it is a trivial physical process. Acting out and getting others involved and the authorities' notice is ironclad evidence of some combination of mental incompetence and motivations other than actual death. And of course, your strawman prattle is ludicrous, as "get it while you can before you're dirt" is wholly incompatible with the Catholic faith or your cult faith or any other projection you sillily try to throw up. Also I understand that you have such a need for free will to be something you can ineptly, counterproductively use against competitor religions, that you can't process stipulated hypotheticals. Or just don't have the cognitive competence, of course.
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.The idea that human life is so valuable that it must be preserved against the repeated express wishes of the owner of the life is a religious concept. And denying people the right to physician assisted suicide is a severe restriction on the freedom to end one's own life. If it's a trivial physical process, then there would be no reason to support it for most terminally ill people who, for the most part, would be capable of carrying it out themselves. If you value life in the sense that you like your own life and value those around you (but wouldn't want the government to force them to stay alive, or restrict their options for dying, if they didn't value their life), then it would be reasonable to say that your perspective was not a religious one. But this incoherent gibber about needing to protect people from being harmed by making sure that they have no legal recourse other than to be harmed is a product of a religious mindset. Just because there's a term called "free will" it doesn't mean that its referrent need exist in reality. There are lots of words and terms for things that don't actually exist in real life. Dragons, unicorns, fairies, etc. The mental illness is not the "express wishes of the owner", whether it is for sexual mutilation, cannibalism and/or death. And that's only a religious concept because you hold religion supreme above the values of man, even basing it on your own "Objective" like the rest of the faithful. Terminally ill people are already in a world of hurt, and there's no downside to it whether they're mentally ill or completely rational. And I know you predator types like having fellow mentally ill available as fodder for abuse.  And I understand that you can't conceive the hypothetical existence of "Dragons, unicorns, fairies" for the purposes of discussion. For some combination of raw tendentiousness and profound incompetence.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal. |
|
