Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 0:45:31 GMT
tpfkar You did gloss over the religious dimension to your own beliefs. "Get it while you can before you're dirt" doesn't imply anything about an overreaching government placing restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence, which may include involving consenting third parties who are willing to offer their services and products in order to ease the process along. So what you're responding with is a strawman argument, because as you know, I don't have any problem with the "get it while you can before you're dirt" part. And I've always maintained that free will, in any meaningful sense, would be logically impossible under any scenario that could be imagined by the human mind. The only "religious dimension" is your awe and reverence of religion, borne of your own rabid religiosity and further evidenced by your continual cult framings. Regardless of your supplication to it, religion is the product of man and not the source of ideas like valuing life and protecting the vulnerable. Of course restrictions on third parties from sexually mutilating, eating and killing the mentally ill is not "restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence", it's protection from the murderous sexual psychopaths about. If one of sound mind has truly decided to end their own life it is a trivial physical process. Acting out and getting others involved and the authorities' notice is ironclad evidence of some combination of mental incompetence and motivations other than actual death. And of course, your strawman prattle is ludicrous, as "get it while you can before you're dirt" is wholly incompatible with the Catholic faith or your cult faith or any other projection you sillily try to throw up. Also I understand that you have such a need for free will to be something you can ineptly, counterproductively use against competitor religions, that you can't process stipulated hypotheticals. Or just don't have the cognitive competence, of course.
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.The idea that human life is so valuable that it must be preserved against the repeated express wishes of the owner of the life is a religious concept. And denying people the right to physician assisted suicide is a severe restriction on the freedom to end one's own life. If it's a trivial physical process, then there would be no reason to support it for most terminally ill people who, for the most part, would be capable of carrying it out themselves. If you value life in the sense that you like your own life and value those around you (but wouldn't want the government to force them to stay alive, or restrict their options for dying, if they didn't value their life), then it would be reasonable to say that your perspective was not a religious one. But this incoherent gibber about needing to protect people from being harmed by making sure that they have no legal recourse other than to be harmed is a product of a religious mindset. Just because there's a term called "free will" it doesn't mean that its referrent need exist in reality. There are lots of words and terms for things that don't actually exist in real life. Dragons, unicorns, fairies, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 12, 2018 0:56:59 GMT
tpfkar The only "religious dimension" is your awe and reverence of religion, borne of your own rabid religiosity and further evidenced by your continual cult framings. Regardless of your supplication to it, religion is the product of man and not the source of ideas like valuing life and protecting the vulnerable. Of course restrictions on third parties from sexually mutilating, eating and killing the mentally ill is not "restrictions on one's freedom to seek out an end to one's existence", it's protection from the murderous sexual psychopaths about. If one of sound mind has truly decided to end their own life it is a trivial physical process. Acting out and getting others involved and the authorities' notice is ironclad evidence of some combination of mental incompetence and motivations other than actual death. And of course, your strawman prattle is ludicrous, as "get it while you can before you're dirt" is wholly incompatible with the Catholic faith or your cult faith or any other projection you sillily try to throw up. Also I understand that you have such a need for free will to be something you can ineptly, counterproductively use against competitor religions, that you can't process stipulated hypotheticals. Or just don't have the cognitive competence, of course.
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.The idea that human life is so valuable that it must be preserved against the repeated express wishes of the owner of the life is a religious concept. And denying people the right to physician assisted suicide is a severe restriction on the freedom to end one's own life. If it's a trivial physical process, then there would be no reason to support it for most terminally ill people who, for the most part, would be capable of carrying it out themselves. If you value life in the sense that you like your own life and value those around you (but wouldn't want the government to force them to stay alive, or restrict their options for dying, if they didn't value their life), then it would be reasonable to say that your perspective was not a religious one. But this incoherent gibber about needing to protect people from being harmed by making sure that they have no legal recourse other than to be harmed is a product of a religious mindset. Just because there's a term called "free will" it doesn't mean that its referrent need exist in reality. There are lots of words and terms for things that don't actually exist in real life. Dragons, unicorns, fairies, etc. The mental illness is not the "express wishes of the owner", whether it is for sexual mutilation, cannibalism and/or death. And that's only a religious concept because you hold religion supreme above the values of man, even basing it on your own "Objective" like the rest of the faithful. Terminally ill people are already in a world of hurt, and there's no downside to it whether they're mentally ill or completely rational. And I know you predator types like having fellow mentally ill available as fodder for abuse.  And I understand that you can't conceive the hypothetical existence of "Dragons, unicorns, fairies" for the purposes of discussion. For some combination of raw tendentiousness and profound incompetence.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 15:04:34 GMT
tpfkar No, I am restricting this question to those hypocrite theists who claim that this life (even a happy one) is inferior to the afterlife and yet they do not practice what they preach. They do all they can to postpone death. It's human nature to want something better. So if the afterlife is better, why take extraordinary measures (like going to the doctor) to postpone death as long a possible. The answer, of course, is evolution. Evolution has given us the will to survive for as long as possible. (Those without a will to live do not pass this trait on to offspring). In other words, evolution contradicts the creationists theory of a happy afterlife. If the afterlife is better, that doesn't mean that life on Earth isn't good. The afterlife is forever. Life on Earth is very short. So if you enjoy life on Earth, why wouldn't you want to experience it for as long as you can (which nevertheless is going to be an extremely short period of time)? There would be no need to hurry to the afterlife. But you'd want to milk something you enjoy but that's going to be very short for as much as you can. I don't know, there've been many times in life I was ready to get to the next "better" thing, and knowing about it, it was kind of a grind to keep slogging away until the day came.
R.I.P. Mr. Bradley |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:00:52 GMT
tpfkar The idea that human life is so valuable that it must be preserved against the repeated express wishes of the owner of the life is a religious concept. And denying people the right to physician assisted suicide is a severe restriction on the freedom to end one's own life. If it's a trivial physical process, then there would be no reason to support it for most terminally ill people who, for the most part, would be capable of carrying it out themselves. If you value life in the sense that you like your own life and value those around you (but wouldn't want the government to force them to stay alive, or restrict their options for dying, if they didn't value their life), then it would be reasonable to say that your perspective was not a religious one. But this incoherent gibber about needing to protect people from being harmed by making sure that they have no legal recourse other than to be harmed is a product of a religious mindset. Just because there's a term called "free will" it doesn't mean that its referrent need exist in reality. There are lots of words and terms for things that don't actually exist in real life. Dragons, unicorns, fairies, etc. The mental illness is not the "express wishes of the owner", whether it is for sexual mutilation, cannibalism and/or death. And that's only a religious concept because you hold religion supreme above the values of man, even basing it on your own "Objective" like the rest of the faithful. Terminally ill people are already in a world of hurt, and there's no downside to it whether they're mentally ill or completely rational. And I know you predator types like having fellow mentally ill available as fodder for abuse. And I understand that you can't conceive the hypothetical existence of "Dragons, unicorns, fairies" for the purposes of discussion. For some combination of raw tendentiousness and profound incompetence.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.The mental illness is not an entity that exists independently of the mind of the person expressing the wishes. And when the mentally ill person says that they wish to be assisted to die, they're not contravening the wishes of 'the real them' to be forced to stay alive through government coercion. Being anti-suicide is always either a religious/spiritual position, or an authoritarian one. In the first instance, the person who wants to commit suicide is at the mercy of the high value that others place on that person's humanity. In other words, that person is not being denied assistance to die in order to conserve the person's own valuation of their own life; but to conserve society's valuation of human life. In the second case, the government would deny the right to suicide because it would potentially reduce the tax revenue, deprive society of a productive worker, etc. You don't seem to be arguing against suicide on a purely authoritarian basis, but from a valuation standpoint. Since you've admitted that the dead person is not deprived of the value of their own life, then you can only be arguing to conserve the intangible value of that person's life from the perspective of society. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:11:00 GMT
tpfkar The mental illness is not the "express wishes of the owner", whether it is for sexual mutilation, cannibalism and/or death. And that's only a religious concept because you hold religion supreme above the values of man, even basing it on your own "Objective" like the rest of the faithful. Terminally ill people are already in a world of hurt, and there's no downside to it whether they're mentally ill or completely rational. And I know you predator types like having fellow mentally ill available as fodder for abuse. And I understand that you can't conceive the hypothetical existence of "Dragons, unicorns, fairies" for the purposes of discussion. For some combination of raw tendentiousness and profound incompetence.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.The mental illness is not an entity that exists independently of the mind of the person expressing the wishes. And when the mentally ill person says that they wish to be assisted to die, they're not contravening the wishes of 'the real them' to be forced to stay alive through government coercion. Being anti-suicide is always either a religious/spiritual position, or an authoritarian one. In the first instance, the person who wants to commit suicide is at the mercy of the high value that others place on that person's humanity. In other words, that person is not being denied assistance to die in order to conserve the person's own valuation of their own life; but to conserve society's valuation of human life. In the second case, the government would deny the right to suicide because it would potentially reduce the tax revenue, deprive society of a productive worker, etc. You don't seem to be arguing against suicide on a purely authoritarian basis, but from a valuation standpoint. Since you've admitted that the dead person is not deprived of the value of their own life, then you can only be arguing to conserve the intangible value of that person's life from the perspective of society. "Existing independently" is more pure irrelevancy.  And I know, you want the mentally ill available for fellow-minded psychopaths to sexually mutilate, cannibalize, and gut, just as long as the mentally ill person "says that they wish" it.  It's only considered "coercion" to help the deranged, and "brainwashing" to successfully treat the mentally ill, by those pathetic abusive wholly narcissistic bloodthirsty psychopaths who teenage-goth-anarchist fantasize of mas violating women and mass-murdering countless. And now your rabid religious self rattling on about "authoritarian".  And I've admitted that a lot of your demented ideas are demented. I'm arguing that "go at it until you're dirt", and "don't harm, especially the mentally ill" are good things, and of course mass-violation of women, mass murder, and patent irrationality among many other things you advocate are baaad things.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 17:28:54 GMT
tpfkar The mental illness is not an entity that exists independently of the mind of the person expressing the wishes. And when the mentally ill person says that they wish to be assisted to die, they're not contravening the wishes of 'the real them' to be forced to stay alive through government coercion. Being anti-suicide is always either a religious/spiritual position, or an authoritarian one. In the first instance, the person who wants to commit suicide is at the mercy of the high value that others place on that person's humanity. In other words, that person is not being denied assistance to die in order to conserve the person's own valuation of their own life; but to conserve society's valuation of human life. In the second case, the government would deny the right to suicide because it would potentially reduce the tax revenue, deprive society of a productive worker, etc. You don't seem to be arguing against suicide on a purely authoritarian basis, but from a valuation standpoint. Since you've admitted that the dead person is not deprived of the value of their own life, then you can only be arguing to conserve the intangible value of that person's life from the perspective of society. "Existing independently" is more pure irrelevancy. And I know, you want the mentally ill available for fellow-minded psychopaths to sexually mutilate, cannibalize, and gut, just as long as the mentally ill person "says that they wish" it. It's only considered "coercion" to help the deranged, and "brainwashing" to successfully treat the mentally ill, by those pathetic abusive wholly narcissistic bloodthirsty psychopaths who teenage-goth-anarchist fantasize of mas violating women and mass-murdering countless. And now your rabid religious self rattling on about "authoritarian". And I've admitted that a lot of your demented ideas are demented. I'm arguing that "go at it until you're dirt", and "don't harm, especially the mentally ill" are good things, and of course mass-violation of women, mass murder, and patent irrationality among many other things you advocate are baaad things.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.It's relevant to the fact that you're claiming that a mentally ill person's request to die doesn't reflect their actual feelings, regardless of how many times they repeat it with conviction. And you've just ignored the question about whither this 'value' derives that you wish to conserve. "Don't harm, especially the mentally ill" leaves the person vulnerable to the harm that they want to escape and only 'harms' them from the perspective of those who will not be the ones receiving the treatment. There's no justification why the 'harm' as others perceive it should be considered more important than the harm that the patient is actually enduring and will continue to endure. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 17:34:57 GMT
tpfkar "Existing independently" is more pure irrelevancy. And I know, you want the mentally ill available for fellow-minded psychopaths to sexually mutilate, cannibalize, and gut, just as long as the mentally ill person "says that they wish" it. It's only considered "coercion" to help the deranged, and "brainwashing" to successfully treat the mentally ill, by those pathetic abusive wholly narcissistic bloodthirsty psychopaths who teenage-goth-anarchist fantasize of mas violating women and mass-murdering countless. And now your rabid religious self rattling on about "authoritarian". And I've admitted that a lot of your demented ideas are demented. I'm arguing that "go at it until you're dirt", and "don't harm, especially the mentally ill" are good things, and of course mass-violation of women, mass murder, and patent irrationality among many other things you advocate are baaad things.
They could refrain from imposing on others, or be sterilised to prevent them from doing so.It's relevant to the fact that you're claiming that a mentally ill person's request to die doesn't reflect their actual feelings, regardless of how many times they repeat it with conviction. And you've just ignored the question about whither this 'value' derives that you wish to conserve. "Don't harm, especially the mentally ill" leaves the person vulnerable to the harm that they want to escape and only 'harms' them from the perspective of those who will not be the ones receiving the treatment. There's no justification why the 'harm' as others perceive it should be considered more important than the harm that the patient is actually enduring and will continue to endure. "Actual feelings" and rational wants outside of the illness are two different things. People derive "value" from all manners of subjective sources. Personally I don't like pathetic, narcissistic crazies trying to curtail peoples chances to experience this one short time period, based on the morbid psychopath's personal first-world miseries. And I'm empathetic in that if I became deranged I'd certainly like to be helped and not killed upon derangement or great stress and upset. And there's no justification for your absurd redefinition of countless words.
Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2018 18:37:01 GMT
tpfkar It's relevant to the fact that you're claiming that a mentally ill person's request to die doesn't reflect their actual feelings, regardless of how many times they repeat it with conviction. And you've just ignored the question about whither this 'value' derives that you wish to conserve. "Don't harm, especially the mentally ill" leaves the person vulnerable to the harm that they want to escape and only 'harms' them from the perspective of those who will not be the ones receiving the treatment. There's no justification why the 'harm' as others perceive it should be considered more important than the harm that the patient is actually enduring and will continue to endure. "Actual feelings" and rational wants outside of the illness are two different things. People derive "value" from all manners of subjective sources. Personally I don't like pathetic, narcissistic crazies trying to curtail peoples chances to experience this one short time period, based on the morbid psychopath's personal first-world miseries. And I'm empathetic in that if I became deranged I'd certainly like to be helped and not killed upon derangement or great stress and upset. And there's no justification for your absurd redefinition of countless words.
Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.Whose chances to to live would be 'curtailed' by not being born? And you're so empathetic that even if you wanted to die, you wouldn't want to die. Well done. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 13, 2018 18:43:39 GMT
tpfkar "Actual feelings" and rational wants outside of the illness are two different things. People derive "value" from all manners of subjective sources. Personally I don't like pathetic, narcissistic crazies trying to curtail peoples chances to experience this one short time period, based on the morbid psychopath's personal first-world miseries. And I'm empathetic in that if I became deranged I'd certainly like to be helped and not killed upon derangement or great stress and upset. And there's no justification for your absurd redefinition of countless words.
Violence in this case would be the imposition of needs, wants and the potential for suffering by way of the creation of new life.Whose chances to to live would be 'curtailed' by not being born? And you're so empathetic that even if you wanted to die, you wouldn't want to die. Well done. The many ones you want killed or to kill. Sure, I'm competent enough to know that in trauma, derangement, and the like I'm not emitting what I actually want and would like to be treated and have the symptoms ameliorated, or as you like to say, be "brainwashed". And it's pretty much child's play to do "well done" against patently deranged murderous psychopathy.
"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." |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 12, 2019 0:02:40 GMT
I've got a better one for hard core atheists. There's a video on Youtube from CNN about a 5 year old terminally ill child, whose parents let her pick if she wanted to go back to the hospital, which at best could only offer excruciatingly painful treatments to prolong her life, or she could stay at home for the remainder of whatever time she had left, and just go to Heaven when it was her time. A lot of atheists are VERY upset with this video and with the family's decision to let her choose, primarily because they say the parents lied to her about going to Heaven, they are very deeply troubled that a child was told she'll go to a wonderful place when she dies, even though they insist there's no form of afterlife whatsoever, so there's absolutely NO way she could ever know she was lied to. If there's nothing after this life, why would that 'lie' bother atheists who believe there's absolutely nothing once you die? How could you be so bothered by a lie that you truly believed would NEVER be found out? It really implies they think there's SOME kind of afterlife and when it doesn't live up to her expectations she'll be heartbroken. For an atheist, WHAT kind of sense does that make? Yeah, I don't know why an atheist would be all that upset about parents offering the kid that....especially since, apparently, the kid was tragically terminally ill and nothing in the hospital would change that. As an atheist, if I was faced with one of my grand child's imminent unavoidable death, I'd lie my ass off to give them peace of mind. |
|
