WHAT KILLED THIS BOARD?

I'll give you Aspergers (which I have suspected that I possibly have), but that isn't a mental illness. If I were a psychopath, then I would have no concern for the suffering of others, let alone have a strong conviction that imposed suffering ought to be ended by drastic means. Although psychopathy/sociopathy aren't mental illnesses in any case, so you've failed to name anything that supports your charge of "certifiably insane".

And yes, I would like to also cease to exist, but whilst I'm being forced to exist due to the restrictive and paternalistic laws on suicide, I want to at least contribute to getting these secular views more widely disseminated.

Yes, people would suffer if they were exterminated in a painful way, and I would far prefer to avoid that. But it would be better to cause suffering in those currently alive, especially when done in order to prevent those people from perpetuating an endless cycle of suffering on others for their own projected gain. And I would be one of the people killed in that event and having to suffer, because it would be unlikely that rational and compassionate suicide laws would exist to enable me to exit in a graceful way. So you're saying that I am a psychopath because I'd rather actually minimise the number of people who are forced to suffer. Also one of the criteria for psychopathy was this "A disregard for the rights of others". But my whole philosophical system is based on the fact that I think that there should be a right not to be unduly imposed upon (unduly meaning being treated as a means to someone else's end).

And I am being forced to exist based on the fact that all the methods that haven't been banned are risky and most are painful. The reason why this is the case is because people such as yourself are afraid that you can't win the argument (about this hubristic sanctity of life mush) by fair means, so you've got to use forceful and paternalistic means to impede anyone who would dissent (and if they spend a lifetime being tortured by suffering, then it's worth it in your estimation in service of upholding the 'sanctity of life'). If people actually had easy access to the means to suicide for whatever reason that they saw fit, then pretty soon your game would be up and people would start to see the futility of all of this.

You and Erj both!  And you insult continuously all the way back to "religious" and "selfish" and "callous" and "Catholic" and idiots" and whatever else you feel like when you do it before coming back around to complain about it.  And right, wanting to nuke the world is ok because your reasons are "drastic". 

---

On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"

1) You started with the nasty over state supported suicide for the mentally ill, whether you want to go in and out of it at your convenience.  2) You may find "deranged" for deranged words and "psychopathic" for psychopathic advocacies to be insulting, but there's not any other way to word them, even if you had engendered any accomodation.

And of course I find your desire to have the state off the mentally ill in service to the ending of humanity to be both deranged and psychopathic.  And many of your stances to be both utterly irrational and laughably hypocritical.  Hence, the nature of the interactions that include your frequent barks followed by lugubrious wailing and occasional totally believable sillybrags. 

---

"I am opposed to the creation of new life, on the basis of the fact that it will impose risks upon someone who cannot consent to those risks"
"If it's OK not to seek someone's consent because they cannot refuse consent, then it's OK to rape a woman who is passed out drunk and who cannot be revived to request permission."

Your idea that someone who responds is an aggressor and your frequent calls for help shows your pain, I guess.  No matter how much you dump, you can't erase your utter hypocrisy of starting and continuing the nasty and then wailing about replies to it and descriptions of pure crazy.

And I'm not having a conversation with someone just speaking about state suicide for the mentally ill, whom I could disagree with and not be called all manner of nasty names followed by blubbers about the tone nor be subject to all manner of rank irrationality.  This is the conversation with you, the guy that posts posed half-naked pictures of Asians in torture situations as relevant to anything, posts the most utter crazy, insults and calls names at will, and then howls and begs about it.

---

If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern.

Again just now, "other people who have you on ignore", and your overt beg to a response being an "aggression".   Sure, you made frustrated typo diving, but then you called direct names, which you continue to this day.  No skin off me, but when you do that and then wail about tone and accurate appraisals of your crazy, it just shows what a delicate flower you are.   And again you beg to outside.  Personally I like it when people collapse to typo-crying, as it shows they know they're full of it - otherwise they'd straightforward ask for a clarification.

"Right to die" is not wanting to nuke the world nor even justifying anything by the deranged "once they're dead they can't feel anything".  That's pure around-the-bend crazy, regardless of whether that stings.  I match tone, and am quite fond of engaging crass hypocrisy, senses of entitlement, nasty, and of course as you know, all of that and pure crazy too.  And I don't have likes, or people I really reply to here, I reply to post content.  Nor am I in any way concerned with "goodwill" above just getting down to accurate information.  But you go right ahead with your begs to the greater theater.  Maybe it will take the pressure of the unhinged, utterly hypocritical stuff you post. 

---

Given that there's no compelling reason why life needs to be created, then the principle of non-violence should obtain here (an act of imposing a burden on someone else without their consent, even if that burden may bring benefits, is an act of violence).

You're diving out of the conversation, like you've done before, looking for allies in people who like you have the great hypocrisy to set a tone and then wail about it being met.  Trying to use it to wave away the fact that you dove to insults and repeatedly collapsed to wails, then insults, then wails/insults, ad infinitum.   And you can lie out your ass all you like, it's not like it's not a regular trait of yours, but such a comment is not what one asks at a contentious point if they want some clarifications.  But you keep on shoveling, I'm sure you'll think its bulletproof like all of your other arguments. 

And you lie outright.   Pick where I "follow people around just to antagonise them" and let's walk though it.  All your crying begs to that so far have just been you lashing out in pain.   And btw, did you antagonize Graham or he you?  I can tell you what it seemed like from all the bawling.

And there you go some more just like you did from the start.   Not to mention par-for-the-course dishonest, as it regards not just "other people" but the mentally ill, whose output of desires we can't trust.  But nice nasty!   Maybe I should wail like a babygirl about it instead of just point out how utterly ludicrous it is.   "Homosexuals" aren't mentally ill, and again I accept any rational argument that makes sense - I guess to you that's "toadying"?  And I've disagreed wiht Falconia as much as I've agreed with her on things, and have posted on it and would again if it came up again.  I really don't understand how all this mystifies you.  Well, probably I do.

---

And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.

"Forced to exist".   And "no concern" and deranged misdirected "concern" that includes jackboot thugism and mass murder are very very different things.  And your going on about lay usages fro utter crazy just highlights the utter crazy. 

And you and your rant-guy publicize just as widely as possible, please!

---

On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"

What "harm done"? Are you saying that harm is an objective reality, rather than a subjective one? That harm can exist even where there is nobody feeling harmed? The scenario in which the suffering person is assisted to die in a clinic is one where his last experiences are ones of relief at having secured the assistance necessary to end his suffering, followed by ceasing to exist (which we agree cannot be harmful). So if the person being assisted to die doesn't experience subjective harm, then that would only leave some kind of 'objective harm' (and yet you've ridiculed me for saying that, in some sense, there are objective moral principles). Otherwise, where is the harm that's done?