Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 22:42:38 GMT
tpfkar
Apr 3, 2018 17:44:01 GMT @miccee said:
Yes you did claim that. After I was referring to philosophers that I follow on Youtube (really one in particular) you referenced Philip Nitschke and Exit International, when I never claimed that they were an antinatalist organisation.Right to die means just that. Most people who say that they support the right to die actually support the privilege to die under certain circumscribed circumstances. The right to die doesn't have such qualifications. Right to die means that everyone is entitled to their own body, and therefore law enforcement and emergency services would only have the right to prevent a suicide using force in the event that the suicide was going to endanger others (for example, someone jumping off a motorway bridge in front of oncoming traffic). It shouldn't be a 'right' only in the (non)sense that people can do it covertly, because if that's the definition of 'right' then homosexuals already had the right to homosexual sex before homosexuality was decriminalised.
A non-existent person isn't your victim, the person you forced into existence is your victim. And I am profoundly concerned about their wellbeing, even if caring about suffering and consent qualifies as psychopathy in your estimation.
People should have the right to free treatment for their mental illnesses, having such a right doesn't imply precluding a right to be supported in opting out of suffering altogether.
"Referencing" doesn't make any such "claim" except in the easy twittedness plopping out of an Ada mind. Right to die does not mean killing/facilitating the killing of the mentally ill for most, much less everybody. Regardless of how badly you want to conflate your murderously psychopathic views widely. Everybody has a right to off themselves, just don't act mentally ill and get people concerned enough to try to help protect you from your delusions/intoxications/illnesses/narcissisms, 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.
And I understand you have the self-loathing idea that homosexuality is harmful. Hope you manage to resolve that one day and get you some personal contact. You might want to try to suppress your ruminations of hook-ups with Arlon though.
This is either a case of misdirection or reading comprehension issues. Having a 'right' to do something has no relation to whether the action is harmful or not. Smoking and alcohol consumption are both harmful actions (and can harm others as well as the person consuming), but people have a right to do those things if they are over a certain age. As long as smokers do not smoke in certain locations such as bars and restaurants, police cannot use force to prevent them from doing so. Smokers don't need to procure their cigarettes through shady black market sources based in Mexico and hope that the package doesn't get intercepted en route, or that the police somehow find out that they have obtained cigarettes and break down the door of their home in a raid at 4am to confiscate the contraban. There's no involuntary 72 hour hold period in a hospital for being caught smoking, or being suspected of planning to attempt to light a cigarette. There's no Facebook algorithm which alerts your other Facebook contacts that you are 'at risk' of lighting a cigarette. There are lots of things that people have a right to do that can harm themselves and others, and what all these things have in common is that the police cannot forcibly prevent you from doing these things unless you're doing them in such a way that poses a danger to other people or infringes the rights of other people. I'm not referencing anything other than a legal right, because there's no other type of right that exists. Rights cannot be observed in nature, they are a legal construct.
The nonexistent are not anything, and your idea to support consent by exterminating the extant against their or their mother's consent as opposed to allowing them to decide for themselves once they are competent just keeps delighting with the crazy funnies of the psychopathic playtime god.
A foetus cannot give consent one way or another, so aborting them cannot be 'against' their consent. It's done without their consent, but there's no adverse consequences to doing it and the foetus doesn't have any desire one way or the other, so it's not done against what they desire.