Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2017 8:28:28 GMT
tpfkar Not providing blades to babes is "avoiding harm". I haven't suggested providing 'blades to babes'. Or anything else that would inadvertently harm someone. You have not established that all people who desire suicide are mentally ill, nor that all mentally ill are incapable of processing rational thought. You have ignored the fact that many (perhaps most) mentally ill people are fully functioning members of society who routinely make rational and sensible decisions concerning their own wellbeing, and in fact, if all sufferers of mental illness needed full time care, it would be economically unsustainable. All you have presented is a catch-22 whereby nobody who is mentally ill can access suicide, but anyone who would want suicide for any reason (or even support the right for others to be allowed to commit suicide) is mentally ill because only mentally ill people would want to commit suicide or believe that it should be a person's right to do so. If you are going to deny a person bodily autonomy based on their proposed choice being irrational, then the onus should be on the agency acting to deny liberty to explain where the thinking is irrational. Desiring suicide as a means of harm avoidance/minimisation is not irrational. Whilst putting an end to all harm would also put an end to any possibility of pleasure, a dead person will not feel deprived of pleasure, but will be spared harm. Both are cases of retrograde morality being used to deny civil rights advances which harm no innocent party. Again, it is "mentally deranged" only because your worldview is rigid and dogmatic - anyone who doesn't like life for any reason is mentally ill because only mentally ill people would not like life. And it doesn't matter what kind of life, because life has an infinitely positive value, and anyone who rates it any less than infinitely valuable is mentally deranged. Fortunately, this particular form of mental derangement is becoming more common in Europe and the laws in countries such as The Netherlands and Belgium reflect this; although there is still a long road before the right to bodily autonomy is available to the masses. Nobody had the choice whether to forbid or consent to their birth. The birth was decided for them on the basis that it was what the parents desired. And then the burden lies on that person to put in the onerous work to maintain that life and be thrown into severe hardship if they come up short of what is needed. Or even if they were merely unlucky. As this choice is sanctioned and supported by society, society should also have some responsibility for the collateral damage which is caused in the form of people who really aren't happy to have been born. And if I'm 'religious' tell me what religion it is that I follow and what scripture I have referenced. Shared values are not objective. They are subject to evolution, which is why homosexuality would have once been an unthinkable affront to shared values, but by and large, is no big deal in many parts of the world any more. The closest that we can get to objectivity is determining whether a course of action is harmful. And whilst assisted suicide technically results in short term harm, a patient should have the right to choose the short term harm of having their bodily functions stopped over the long term harm of maintaining a burdensome and troubled life. My morals is that everyone should have the maximum degree of liberty possible without trespassing upon someone else's liberty or failing in their part of an agreed responsibility to pay back what they have taken. Since suicide can be permitted and assisted without trespassing on someone else's liberty, or reneging on an AGREED responsibility, then there is no libertarian reason to deny the right to do so.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 11:24:00 GMT
What is the most common Islamic view of apostasy?
And yes I have, thanks. I don't stereotype people by their religion, if that is what you are suggesting. It is religion which often stereotypes people.
Depends on location.
What do you think a Muslim in the States or Europe or Canada routinely faces when he leaves Islam? Not much.
However, there are certainly some countries that mandate the teaching even among non-Muslims and it would be according to whatever laws are in place.
The focus on my statement had to do with Muslims and so your focus on the institution is irrelevant to the happiness enjoyed by its adherents except to say that most do not seem to be in any particular fear of that institution and that's even when they are serving me bacon on my Subway sandwich. The teaching of Islam in regards to apostasy is clear. It would be reasonable to assume, moreover since your encounters with Muslims appears to be chiefly with those in menial jobs serving you bacon, that, a. your experience with Islam is limited (being principally in the west, for instance, where the faith is not in the majority) and, b. that you have not encountered representatives of Islam actively contemplating apostasy. It is not a happy journey, especially in more religious societies. This is not to say however that all religious folk are unhappy. Indeed reassurance and social connection is one of religions undisputed benefits. But to claim that "the primary goal of religion is to offer people an option regarding beliefs that they concur with" simply has it the wrong way round, as plenty of religion is all about telling people what they ought to concur with - and those who don't can, unfortunately, suffer and can be condemned. Generally speaking religion does not aim to please its adherents (and indeed suffering or persecution is taken by some as proof that things are going as they should) It is they who are called upon to satisfy its tenets, and thereby presumably please the priests and deity pertaining. And, away from Islam, while it may not be the case today, there is plenty of history from the west which shows exactly how unhappy religion made dissenters and those who alienated from the church, from whatever side, over hundreds of years.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 8, 2017 13:36:04 GMT
tpfkar As already handily established, of course you have. The fact that they cannot comprehend that if they truly desired it they would accomplish it, trivially, demonstrates their mental incompetence. The fact that they wish to compensate for personal cowardice by the introduction of peril to a great many vulnerable indicates a level of sociopathy. Anybody who is not physically incapable or physically restrained has the easily-accomplished choice of suicide. The "choice" of taking advantage of / ineptly harming the mentally impaired is not "personal autonomy". And yes, when all are dead, there will be no pain. That as a universal goal is another indication of derangement. It's positively a civil rights holocaust. Nobody has a "civil right" to recklessly or maliciously harm the mentally ill, regardless of your continuing hilarious language butchery. There are logical reasons why people can find life a net-negative. If not mentally ill or physically incompetent (inherently or imposed), the mentally sound can trivially accomplish a solution. And your continuing lopsidedness and general inanity on what can an cannot be contemplated for nonexistent beings remains categorically rejected, for reasons posted multiple times. You're religious as illustrated by your repeated attempts to connect the bogeyman into unrelated discussions and ascribe to it concepts of good that are wholly independent of it. Not to mention that the ludicrousness of religion stems from its fantasy base, not from any of it's appropriation of the ethics of the societies that bore it. And regardless of your morality, the reckless or intentional damage of the mentally ailing is not considered a "liberty" according to the values of any enlightened society.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 8, 2017 15:32:14 GMT
Free will, as you probably understand it, cannot possibly exist because that would require for us to choose our own characteristics, genes, how our experiences shape us, etc. That's free will as you understand it which has nothing to do with me.
Of course, free will is limited to what we can control which is not in contradiction with anything I said. We are only talking choices not all choices which could affect the rights of others or influence things that happen before we even exists which is a silly concept to adhere to as if we are enslaved by human limitations. This isn't a scientific statement. Further, people not being happy about any particular thing does not mean they aren't capable of being happy. Last year I wasn't happy with my job. I'm not happy Trump is president but that has little to do with the overall contentment one has in life and in relation to what should make us happy as opposed to what we think makes us happy.
If people are fed, live in a home, and have the freedom to as they wish provided it doesn't infringe on others, then what exactly would it take to make them happy beyond their more wants? To me, people willfully choose to be unhappy more so there not being any reason to be happy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 8:47:00 GMT
That's free will as you understand it which has nothing to do with me.
Of course, free will is limited to what we can control which is not in contradiction with anything I said. We are only talking choices not all choices which could affect the rights of others or influence things that happen before we even exists which is a silly concept to adhere to as if we are enslaved by human limitations.
How do you understand free will, as it relates to God and your religion? Christianity tends to blame all bad things which happen on human abuse of free will. God didn't create us flawed and with the propensity to evil, we made ourselves this way by misusing the free will that he gave us. Somehow even the imperfections in our environment - diseases, natural disasters, etc are not the fault of the designer, and God has no duty of care whatsoever. Free will as your religion would require it would need humans to be able to choose which thoughts to think before thinking them. we would have to be able to direct the very firing of neurons in our brain. Most humans who exist and who have ever existed have not had those needs met. Also, discontentment is very high even in the wealthiest nations, as is evidenced by political strife, scapegoating and hatred of minorities, the fact that people felt disaffected enough to vote for Trump as their president, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 9:03:42 GMT
The fact that they cannot comprehend that if they truly desired it they would accomplish it, trivially, demonstrates their mental incompetence. The fact that they wish to compensate for personal cowardice by the introduction of peril to a great many vulnerable indicates a level of sociopathy. Anybody who is not physically incapable or physically restrained has the easily-accomplished choice of suicide. The "choice" of taking advantage of / ineptly harming the mentally impaired is not "personal autonomy". And yes, when all are dead, there will be no pain. That as a universal goal is another indication of derangement. Being aware of the grave risks involved in suicide is not a symptom of mental incompetence, and many people contemplate suicide for many years before going through with it. That doesn't indicate that they 'weren't really' suicidal up until the point when they took action. People were brought into the world to be exposed to risks without having any say in the matter. It is reprehensible to then hold them responsible for freeing themselves from the harm that someone else has exposed them to. And what better to do with a problem than to solve it? Life is the source of ALL problems - every one of them. Anything short of addressing the root of all problems is nothing but a sticking plaster. You're just implementing imperfect fixes to hold over until the damned thing inevitably gets broken again. Therefore antinatalism is arguably the logical conclusion of liberalism (and it is no coincidence that liberal political parties tend to place emphasis on the harm that humans are causing to the environment). There would be no holocausts of any kind if not for breeders such as yourself shitting out harmable life-forms (to torture and be tortured, oppress and be oppressed, exploit and be exploited, etc) for the sake of their own ego and biological imperatives...and then advocating that aforementioned life forms should be abandoned in the prisons that we created as collateral damage of your desire to play God. Logical reasons such as being born with a severe disability which renders them in constant excruciating pain (much like being trapped in a small prison cell with the world's most sadistic torturer 24/7 for an entire lifetime) and unable to wipe their own arse, much less commit suicide? It's likely that you would probably take issue with President Trump's support of torture, but you apparently have no qualms about subjecting an innocent human being to a lifetime of torture that other humans (such as yourself) have imposed upon them. But no matter that you have no ability to empathise or care about the pain of an innocent human being; at least you told a poster on the internet off for calling another person on the internet a 'spear chucker'. That's sufficient to make you a wonderful person, I guess. It is a perfectly valid point, as evidenced by the fact that you would presumably not pass condemnation upon people who have chosen to remain childless (thereby, in your terms, 'depriving' some potential human of the opportunity to experience the wonders of life). And regardless of your morality, the reckless or intentional damage of the mentally ailing is not considered a "liberty" according to the values of any enlightened society. And the sanctity of life is a religious concept, or at least it is related to religion in the sense that our desire to find external affirmation of the value of our own lives is what gave rise to religion. In an enlightened society, 'liberty' means that you have the right not to be imposed upon and left to suffer because other people think that it is worth it. It means that if you are suffering and you have clearly expressed a desire to be helped to have that suffering end, people will help you and you will not be abandoned and swept under the carpet as an inconvenient reminder of how dangerous this game can be.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 9, 2017 11:21:52 GMT
tpfkar No grave risks involved to the physically and mentally competent. Period. Nothing reprehensible about giving people the great gift of an easily-rejected choice. Antinatalism is either trollism or a mental illness. None of this is a holocaust, or a great gift an "act of violence" or any other hyperbolic distortion freely issued morbid hysterics. Deal with yourself and stop trying to burn the world with you. If you want to talk edge cases, we can talk edge cases. When you try to mix it in with "suicide epidemic", I'll just chuckle it off as I have been. And I generally tell off twitted idiots for being assh!lish and/or mental twitted idiots. Especially the gushy massive hypocrite types. And your continuing lopsidedness and general inanity on what can an cannot be contemplated for nonexistent beings remains categorically rejected, for reasons posted multiple times. You're religious as illustrated by your repeated attempts to connect the bogeyman into unrelated discussions and ascribe to it concepts of good that are wholly independent of it. Not to mention that the ludicrousness of religion stems from its fantasy base, not from any of it's appropriation of the ethics of the societies that bore it. "Damn cool" does not yield "sanctity" except in the minds of the religious. And regardless of your morality, the reckless or intentional damage of the mentally ailing is not considered a "liberty" according to the values of any enlightened society.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 9, 2017 12:22:48 GMT
The teaching of Islam in regards to apostasy is clear.I said: (I have no idea how to unquote this: They own the place so it's hard to characterize it as menial, s I'll ignore that you pretended to think I was talking about anything other than the otion of them being fine with serving pork. Muslims are employed in all the ways that anyone else is and I've met them in most of those categories This is correct (Finally). It is not religion's job to warp itself into something it's adherents want. It is not TV channel or ebay. The adherents are ones who agree to the terms of what it takes to worship and nothing is holding them there unless it's backed by the government. In non-sucky countries, this simply doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2017 14:56:07 GMT
I did, thanks; and there is a fine page on Apostasy in Islam worth reading. Whether or not it brings with it an automatic death sentence (as some scholars traditionally argued and some extremists still do) it is clear that it is not welcomed, or easy, especially in Islamic societies. Those who practice it often face sanctions, both cultural and religious. But this can hardly come as a surprise.
Again I am surprised that your presumably careful use of the internet has not thrown up examples. Note that I am not saying that such practices are ubiquitous, or the severest of penalties remain uncontested by moderate Islam, and so your implication here is false. I would certainly agree that not every religion is practiced the same in every country.
Then you ought to have chosen a more equitable example. It is also not clear whether seeing some Muslims happily dealing with pork, in what is presumably a 'non-sucky' country, necessarily means that a faith overall is free of sanction and punishment, such as would be advocated by those who adhere to it more fundamentally. And, even if they were found to be serving bacon, with all smiles, this does nothing to substantiate your original point, that "the primary job of religion is to offer people an option they concur with" especially since one can concur with a religion both freely and under duress. Rightly or wrongly one does not look at a lot of religion today and see a mass of smiles for whatever reasons. And, in the west at least, fewer are deciding to 'concur'.
This anecdotal evidence still says nothing definitive about the nature of religion and the required obedience to it tenets..
Indeed. But my point all along (and I apologise if I did not make it clear from the get-go) is that, sometimes, one has to 'concur' with a belief system whether one wants to or not. Some observed happy moderate Muslims, say, does not mean others are not suffering under the current resurgence of fundamentalism - or indeed that every religion has not contained elements and moments of compulsion, persecution and sanctions against the disapproved-of in its history.
That does not mean the terms cannot be onerous, discriminatory or repressive. And there are other pressures for someone to 'concur', other than just the will of governing authorities. It could be the power of the church (as in, say, Ireland at least until the last few years). Or it could just be peer and family pressure.
You are entitled to your opinion. One wonders, for instance, whether those pregnant women in contemporary Ireland, obliged to flee to have their abortions overseas, otherwise living in misery due to the Catholic's pro-life changes to the constitution back in the day, are happily 'concurring'. Or those fighting for the rights of female clergy in the UK have been happy 'concurring' when the conservatives held sway denying women their modern role in the church. Again, I am not arguing that there isn't a wide variety of acceptance and belief within any religion, as well as degrees of observance. But, especially in less-well educated societies, or those which remain strongly patriarchal, concurrence does not necessarily mean happiness or agreement - just obligation, especially where there is no alternative and the older, more drastic, punishments are in force. To say that there "is nothing holding them back" is just a social ideal based on living in a liberal democracy, where the threat of religion is less onerous.
|
|