Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2018 5:47:28 GMT
tpfkar
Mar 31, 2018 17:30:51 GMT @miccee said:
In a universe without any sentient life, who would be the "uncrushed undemented peepizoids" who would be "berry berry sad" about the absence of life?
Would they be the disembodied souls floating about the ether that you're so desperate to save by forcing them into an existence for which they had never asked?The whole basis of my philosophy is a profound moral concern for the wellbeing of the vulnerable, whose wellbeing I deem to be equally as important as my own. So that comment is pure libel. They wouldn't be vulnerable in the first place if not for someone like you taking out a credit card in their name, then running up colossal debts on it without their permission, then forcing those vulnerables to be enslaved to that debt which can never be paid off before death. Yes, I even favour rather draconian and authoritarian methods of preventing people from running up that debt, and I also favour liberal laws allowing everyone has had these debts imposed on them to be able to opt-out at any time, with the full support of the legal system and medical-industrial establishment. If everyone would agree only to run up debts on their own credit cards, then there would be no need for mass sterlisation or mass-murder.
Since you cannot tell me what the 'cost' is of ceasing to exist (at one's own request, of course), then the only 'costs' that you could possibly be referring to are paid off not by the vulnerables but by those who depend on enslaving the vulnerables (that would be people like yourself).
The whole basis of your philosophy is a predatory quest for your broken-down pathetic ideal of religious perfection. Simpy the negative image of the worship you engaged in all your life before you discovered the youtube crazies that matched your self-wallowing Eeyore morbidity. Whatever crazy lengths you need to go to to pretend some status for yourself.
I just thank you for your continuous shattered teary deliveries of great broken morbid humor. The fact that you trade on insipid semantics of "cost" of ceasing to exist leaves really no room for anything other than mocking you Erj types. I'd feel bad if you weren't such a lying hypocritical doofus with it.
And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
You're the one who stated that right to clinical assistance in dying should be restricted out of fear of the "cost to vulnerables", but what 'cost' can ever possibly accrue to a person who doesn't exist (referring to the person whose wishes are respected and they are peacefully released from their torment)?
It isn't semantics, it's the point that there really isn't any downside to allowing 'vulnerable' people to have the right to choose death, except to those that would enslave those vulnerable people in order to maintain someone else's broken-down pathetic ideal of religious perfection. The people whom you purport to be protecting cannot possibly lose from having the right to die.