Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 16:41:07 GMT
So you're saying that if someone is unhappy because they are homeless, because they have a severe illness which reduces their quality of life to nothing, or if they are in debt over their heads to the notoriously vicious local loan sharks, then all of those people are mentally ill (?)Considering the fact that one cannot be deprived of anything if one is dead, and that the pleasures in life mainly consist of relief from deprivation will lead one to the conclusion that dying peacefully is better than a life of suffering. A) Did you actually read what wrote? Because I did say that there are some (very few, but some) circumstances in which suicide is an option, such as your: "they have a severe illness which reduces their quality of life to nothing". But if you are homeless that is not hopeless because you can go to a shelter and potentially start the process toward getting back into society. If you're in over your head notoriously vicious local loan sharks that is also not hopeless because you might figure out a way to pay them off. There's always hope.
The homeless person may be able to find a shelter and start on the process towards getting back into society; but more likely their situation will not improve and they will spend the rest of their life on the street. The debtor may find a way to pay off the loan sharks, but more likely they will have their kneecaps shattered. So are you saying that it's a bad thing that dead people don't spend the rest of eternity tormented by deprivation and regret? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2017 16:46:15 GMT
An irrational reason for suicide would be something like "When hippos are upset, their sweat turns red". But suicide in response to prolonged suffering is completely rational. Even if the suffering in question is induced by psychotic hallucinations or delusions. And wanting people not to be subjected to a risky (and ultimately meaningless) venture to which they cannot consent is not psychopathy. An irrational reason for suicide is "something stupid I posted went viral". An irrational and narcissistic reason for trying to institute state-facilitated suicide for all is personal timidity, demented misanthropy, and utter selfishness. A psychopathic reason reason for wanting all sentient life to end is "bad things can happen, and once they're dead they can't regret anyway".
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.The person who regretted their embarrassing social media post would likely be helped back to a happy and productive life under the plans that I have set forth. Otherwise, if they were too ashamed to admit their suicidal feelings for fear of being forcibly imprisoned in a psychiatric ward with no fixed release date, they would be more likely to act rashly and hang or shoot themselves. A compassionate and rational reason for wanting to implement state facilitated assisted suicide is that autonomy should be the highest principle that we strive towards in society, and we shouldn't force people to suffer unnecessarily or make it more difficult than necessary to escape their suffering. A secular reason for not wanting future generations of humans to be born is that people cannot consent to the harms that they will encounter if they come into existence, it is wrong to gamble with someone's wellbeing without their prior consent, and nobody who is not born will feel deprived of the much-vaunted wonders of coming into existence (such as working most of your life to enrich someone else, hoping to be one of the lucky ones who isn't crippled by illness, disability or mental trauma, then forcing all of those risks on someone else). |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Sept 14, 2017 16:47:51 GMT
A) Did you actually read what wrote? Because I did say that there are some (very few, but some) circumstances in which suicide is an option, such as your: "they have a severe illness which reduces their quality of life to nothing". But if you are homeless that is not hopeless because you can go to a shelter and potentially start the process toward getting back into society. If you're in over your head notoriously vicious local loan sharks that is also not hopeless because you might figure out a way to pay them off. There's always hope.
The homeless person may be able to find a shelter and start on the process towards getting back into society; but more likely their situation will not improve and they will spend the rest of their life on the street. The debtor may find a way to pay off the loan sharks, but more likely they will have their kneecaps shattered. So are you saying that it's a bad thing that dead people don't spend the rest of eternity tormented by deprivation and regret?
The homeless person may be able to find a shelter and start on the process towards getting back into society; but more likely their situation will not improve and they will spend the rest of their life on the street.
The debtor may find a way to pay off the loan sharks, but more likely they will have their kneecaps shattered.
Ok, so you're a cup half empty sort. I guess that's what the difference between us is.
So are you saying that it's a bad thing that dead people don't spend the rest of eternity tormented by deprivation and regret?
No, I'm saying that I think its worrisome that YOU are thinking that.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 14, 2017 18:21:21 GMT
tpfkar The person who regretted their embarrassing social media post would likely be helped back to a happy and productive life under the plans that I have set forth. Otherwise, if they were too ashamed to admit their suicidal feelings for fear of being forcibly imprisoned in a psychiatric ward with no fixed release date, they would be more likely to act rashly and hang or shoot themselves. A compassionate and rational reason for wanting to implement state facilitated assisted suicide is that autonomy should be the highest principle that we strive towards in society, and we shouldn't force people to suffer unnecessarily or make it more difficult than necessary to escape their suffering. A secular reason for not wanting future generations of humans to be born is that people cannot consent to the harms that they will encounter if they come into existence, it is wrong to gamble with someone's wellbeing without their prior consent, and nobody who is not born will feel deprived of the much-vaunted wonders of coming into existence (such as working most of your life to enrich someone else, hoping to be one of the lucky ones who isn't crippled by illness, disability or mental trauma, then forcing all of those risks on someone else). Ha, zero to crazy in the first two sentences! More likely, with a little time it would relieve on it's own. If not, then with counseling they could work through it, or psych hep if necessary. Someone seriously thinking suicide is not ruminating over "forced imprisonment" for 24 or 72 or 80,000 hours. Autonomy for the person, not for their disease. And "autonomy" also doesn't include the state cultivating lethal narcissism and selfishness. And your third is not secular, it's your Crazypants Cult of Death version. There are countless outstanding benefits of this blast that far outbalance the risk of harms, it is generally a great opportunity, continues to improve, and is all over soon enough anyway. Not to mention that any sober-minded, not hyperdramatic person can trivially check out at any time they actually have made such a decision. All this is naughtwankery in any case, as you don't really want state-facilitated suicide to be an option. 
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Sept 15, 2017 0:21:51 GMT
...suicide is painless...
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Sept 15, 2017 0:31:12 GMT
Sedatives in the water.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 0:37:09 GMT
tpfkar
The person who regretted their embarrassing social media post would likely be helped back to a happy and productive life under the plans that I have set forth. Otherwise, if they were too ashamed to admit their suicidal feelings for fear of being forcibly imprisoned in a psychiatric ward with no fixed release date, they would be more likely to act rashly and hang or shoot themselves. A compassionate and rational reason for wanting to implement state facilitated assisted suicide is that autonomy should be the highest principle that we strive towards in society, and we shouldn't force people to suffer unnecessarily or make it more difficult than necessary to escape their suffering. A secular reason for not wanting future generations of humans to be born is that people cannot consent to the harms that they will encounter if they come into existence, it is wrong to gamble with someone's wellbeing without their prior consent, and nobody who is not born will feel deprived of the much-vaunted wonders of coming into existence (such as working most of your life to enrich someone else, hoping to be one of the lucky ones who isn't crippled by illness, disability or mental trauma, then forcing all of those risks on someone else). Ha, zero to crazy in the first two sentences! More likely, with a little time it would relieve on it's own. If not, then with counseling they could work through it, or psych hep if necessary. Someone seriously thinking suicide is not ruminating over "forced imprisonment" for 24 or 72 or 80,000 hours.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.If the person acted on impulse, then they could commit suicide before their embarrassment could be alleviated. However, if the right to assisted suicide were legalised, then they could explore that option and in doing so, have more time to gain a fresh perspective. The 'disease' (if there is such) already has autonomy. The patient should have autonomy to choose whether the chances of curing the disease are worth the continued harm. The definition of autonomy is to be able to make decisions for onesself as long as it does not endanger others. Since suicide is a lawful act in most wealthy nations, all it would be would be allowing it to be legal to assist in an already lawful act. I can't think of any other lawful acts that it is illegal to assist with. Can you provide any examples? And someone else gets to decide whether the prospective benefits (which would not be missed by an unborn entity) are worth pursuing when navigating blindfolded through a minefield of harms. OK, you've seen through me. I'm actually a very devout Catholic and never miss a single mass. I love to 'naughtwank' to the notion of inflicting interminable suffering on people who have done nothing to deserve it and then forcefully blocking any route to escape from harm. How did you manage to see through the charade? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 15, 2017 1:23:57 GMT
tpfkar
Ha, zero to crazy in the first two sentences! More likely, with a little time it would relieve on it's own. If not, then with counseling they could work through it, or psych hep if necessary. Someone seriously thinking suicide is not ruminating over "forced imprisonment" for 24 or 72 or 80,000 hours.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.If the person acted on impulse, then they could commit suicide before their embarrassment could be alleviated. However, if the right to assisted suicide were legalised, then they could explore that option and in doing so, have more time to gain a fresh perspective. Nah, it wouldn't make any difference for that. When they're focusing on their personal tragedy, they're not "worrying" about stays in hospitals. And the result would be orders of magnitude additional impulse suicides. No, the disease is fought/treated. The patient is incapable of making rational choices while the disease has hold. And the ability for making decisions is dependent upon mental competence. Possession vs. selling of drugs, taking ineffective snake oil cancer treatments vs. providing them as cancer treatments, having sex with a stumbling-down drunk stranger, handing a toddler a loaded revolver because he asked to play with it, and so on, and so on. Nope, the individual gets to decide. And the newborn infant wouldn't regret potential downs that have not happened and would most likely be profusely thankful for their time in the ambrosiafield of happiness & enjoyment. Perhaps in a previous or currently suppressed extreme personality, I wouldn't doubt. But no, I understand that you hate your life so much that you want to take all of sentience with you, like that is even a valid actual distinction in your belief system. I know you think you want it, but that is just an illusion after all. Or was it just a "perspective"? Oh hell, so is "thinking". 
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life. |
|
