Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 23:16:53 GMT
tpfkar You're the one who is implying that the never-born are missing out on a chance at life and are in an inferior position (even though they don't exist in order to have, let alone appreciate any position) because they weren't conceived. Of course the non-existent being saved is not coherent. You probably spent a lot of time before becoming a parent daydreaming of everything that you could offer your future children; and yet there's nothing that you can do that would confer an advantage over never having played your part in having made them. What exactly is harmful or undesirable about an old lady having a quantity of barbituate for her own personal usage, such that even after it's already passed through customs and arrived at its destination, the police are justified in breaking into her house and terrorising her to the point where she was so traumatised that she committed suicide very shortly afterwards? Why should she not be allowed to use Nembutal (that's already passed through customs) as a means of suicide rather than something else? Where is your evidence that this woman was a "Youtube crazy" who had sinister intentions involving anyone other than herself? And many qualified doctors with many years of experience in practicing medicine DO think that it's important to be able to access end of life drugs, even for those who are able bodied. And my only concern is, and always has been with those who exist. Just another flat-out lie from you, sur-prise sur-prise.  You go on and on about the imposition done to the empty spaces in the future, and I just note that if you want to go that route then all must be considered about these future creatures. And that your personal psychopathic preferences mean nada save humor against the actual extant making the call when they're able. Peeps are having a blast; even you, it's just you enjoy your particular nurtured miserableness and delusions of having some impact (at least in the direction you think) outside of ranting youtube crazies. And just read again - it's not just the mentally competent that want their hands on the stuff, it's also the treatable despondent and as you demonstrate well, the wannabe lady-abusing mass-murdering loons. At least try to follow minimally. And you've ranted multiyear at this point about "imposition"s to the nonexistent, coupled with the not-imposition of exterminating them.  Among countless other of your patent derangements.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I haven't lied about anything. You've stated that there would be something wrong with a universe in which there is no sentient life, and when you justify bringing children into the world, you point out that they will have a chance to 'have a blast', as if there were any problem with non-existent people not getting to have that chance. If there is a moratorium on bringing sentient creatures into existence, then nothing needs to be considered about them, and there's no problem which will ever need to be solved on their behalf. Deciding to cause someone to exist is not a humanitarian rescue mission for deprived spiritual entities. And if you think that people should have the right to 'make the call', then that suggests giving them all the means that can possibly be provided in order to be facilitated in either choice; not giving them a problem that they must solve without any help at all. There's no secular reason why anyone shouldn't have that substance, as long as it was for strictly personal use. And it had already passed through customs, so wherefore the need to forcibly enter someone's home and steal it from someone who was only going to use it for themselves (and was 'mentally competent' by any reasonable standards)? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 30, 2018 23:21:37 GMT
tpfkar Ah, the religious.  Might as way say "your ilk", Cody. No value competition, people just need to actually decide and certainly psychopaths aren't allowed to sexually cannibalize and gut, sterilize, or outright exterminate. And of course you think in "sacred essences", it's been your whole being your entire life, from childhood to worshiping procreation to extreme-flipping to worshiping death, while believing in a cosmic "Objective", and even babbling on repeatedly about impositions to the nonexistent in your deranged dreams of mass-sterilization and murder. Of course you think "religion", because that is you. Nobody else "thinks" it for "use it until you're dirt" and "vicious libertarianism and advantage-taking of the mentally ill sucks". There's everything predatory about your psychopathic abuse dreams. Anything abuse-laden or lethal goes for the mentally ill, just not if they are scratching and clawing to live. Or just the patent crazy of someone not being harmed by you putting a bullet in their brain. It's murderously deranged, but still overtly predatory. And who cares about your hopeful morbidity on the trends of the world? The unbroken will just keep working to eliminate disparity and on raising everybody and just chuckle at the the self-pitying broken ill with patently Orwellian derangements and impotent, silly delusions of grandeur who rant furiously on youtube and the like. 
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"No, the religious are ones who believe in some kind of greater meaning for humanity's existence. Such as something that would justify withholding access to end of life drugs for those who have expressed an unambiguous wish to be helped to end their unbearable suffering. And I have never advocated for setting up clinics to "sexually cannibalize and gut" anybody. There's nothing at all ethically problematic about something that, even by your own estimations, can have no conceivable negative repercussions for the person receiving the treatment (at their own request). My views are the antithesis of what it means to be religious, because religion is by definition what people use to aggrandise life and humanity's role in the universe. By definition, the view that people shouldn't be assisted to die must be the religious one, because it's impossible to imagine how assisting someone to die (at their request) could have a bad outcome for the person being assisted to die (at their request). Any kind of argument against this assistance would need to invoke something like a greater meaning to life which transcends an individual's own experience of suffering and their rights to their own body. There's nothing "vicious" about helping someone to do something that they have unambiguously stated that they want, and for which they will never experience any unforeseen negative consequences. I don't want this law to exist for the sake of the people who would assist others to die, and it would only be for those who have gone out of their way to seek this type of assistance, therefore by defintion that is not predatory. Nope, the religious beez you in core belief, freaky manner, and ludicrous post content, over and over and over and over. Get it while you can before you're dirt (or locked up), my psychopathic brother. Enjoy your ErJy delusions of grandeur to stand out with your received knowledge and grand Objective, however deranged & gruesome.  Pray for the AI Christ that will save you.  And good to know you ultimately decided against the "cannibalizing and gut clinics". I had no idea you were considering such, I only knew you were good with your fellow psychopaths having their go if they could get the poor mentally ill to assent. But,  And I know you're up for whatever fellow predators can get the mentally ill to agree to. And dream of sterilizing all women. And mass murdering everybody. And among many many lunacies, that you're not harming someone if they don't ever see what destroyed them. The very definition of both predatory and pure pathological wackdoodle. 
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 0:42:44 GMT
tpfkar No, the religious are ones who believe in some kind of greater meaning for humanity's existence. Such as something that would justify withholding access to end of life drugs for those who have expressed an unambiguous wish to be helped to end their unbearable suffering. And I have never advocated for setting up clinics to "sexually cannibalize and gut" anybody. There's nothing at all ethically problematic about something that, even by your own estimations, can have no conceivable negative repercussions for the person receiving the treatment (at their own request). My views are the antithesis of what it means to be religious, because religion is by definition what people use to aggrandise life and humanity's role in the universe. By definition, the view that people shouldn't be assisted to die must be the religious one, because it's impossible to imagine how assisting someone to die (at their request) could have a bad outcome for the person being assisted to die (at their request). Any kind of argument against this assistance would need to invoke something like a greater meaning to life which transcends an individual's own experience of suffering and their rights to their own body. There's nothing "vicious" about helping someone to do something that they have unambiguously stated that they want, and for which they will never experience any unforeseen negative consequences. I don't want this law to exist for the sake of the people who would assist others to die, and it would only be for those who have gone out of their way to seek this type of assistance, therefore by defintion that is not predatory. Nope, the religious beez you in core belief, freaky manner, and ludicrous post content, over and over and over and over. Get it while you can before you're dirt (or locked up), my psychopathic brother. Enjoy your ErJy delusions of grandeur to stand out with your received knowledge and grand Objective, however deranged & gruesome. Pray for the AI Christ that will save you. And good to know you ultimately decided against the "cannibalizing and gut clinics". I had no idea you were considering such, I only knew you were good with your fellow psychopaths having their go if they could get the poor mentally ill to assent. But, And I know you're up for whatever fellow predators can get the mentally ill to agree to. And dream of sterilizing all women. And mass murdering everybody. And among many many lunacies, that you're not harming someone if they don't ever see what destroyed them. The very definition of both predatory and pure pathological wackdoodle.
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.I never objected to "get it while you can before you're dirt", and to keep raising that is a strawman. The only issues at stake are whether it's ethical to rope someone else into existence without their consent, or any reason to think that they needed that existence; and also whether or not everyone who is born ought to have the undisputed and fully legally supported right to terminate their existence in the easiest, most painless, most reliable and most convenient fashion that medical technology can provide. Your repeated mantra references neither of those ethical questions, and then you go on to assert a right to a) gamble with someone else's welfare by creating needs where previously there were none; and b) prevent people from accessing whatever means of assisting in dying would be of greatest convenience to them and would put their mind at rest. There is no coherent argument to be made for saying that it's in the best interests of someone who wants to die to be prevented from doing so in a swift and painless way. The person who dies by that means will never have any future interests which will supercede the ones that they were invested in at the time of requesting assistance to die. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 0:45:31 GMT
tpfkar Sure, you and Arlon both. Except he's not into letting the mentally ill be sexually cannibalized and gutted if they consent to such nor into women consenting to be sterilized against their will or the masses consented to being exterminated. Jack Kevorkian did what he did, and wasn't that for the terminal in any case? And plenty if not most doctors believe the opposite of you about Nembutal for all, are you going to wax stupid about their accomplishments and qualifications as well?  People manage it every day fuss-free. You'd already have it done if you didn't enjoy your life more than your narcissistic nonsensical moaning, or perhaps by means of it. You've gone on about impositions to the nonexistent continuous, nonstop. You just rattle on about the "future" of the nonexistent nothings. Of course letting them have a go being the "imposition" but sterilizing, exterminating, etc., being the great gift to them. Like any good psychopath in full playtime mode.
Objective as in existing outside of minds, or objective as in unbiased and universal.You're missing the point with Jack Kevorkian and Philip Nitschke (whom you omitted to mention). Philip Nitschke is the director of Exit International; an organisation which publishes a guide to suicide which is updated every 3 months, and of which I am a subscriber. I've read through the entire thing and not only does the 'trivially easy', painless and risk-free method without drugs not appear in the document, but if such a means existed and was widely known about, it would make the document redundant. As Philip Nitschke believes that the right to die should be universal and that people shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy only in very rare, circumscribed conditions in which they are about to die anyway, I've no reason to believe that he would withhold this information on purpose. So that really only leaves you with the theory that someone who has gone through medical school and practiced medicine for many years is still somehow so ignorant of how the human body works that even they don't know about this method. And Jack Kevorkian's patients were mostly able bodied, even if terminally ill. So they would have also been able to do this trivially easy and risk-free act themselves, in most cases. I've never made any statement about impositions to the non-existent. Once a foetus is conceived, it exists, and if allowed to be born, it will develop the capacity to feel imposed upon with the burdens of maintaining an unasked-for existence. Nah, I get your "points". Absolutely mind-blowing that those that support it support it, who would have ever thunkit. You must be trembling with something or another. Crazy that the guys who have an agenda breeze over the basic end-arounds to their lines. And as many times run over, people do of course have the right to die; they can't practically be stopped if they don't exhibit signs of mental illness. That doesn't mean Nembutal for all and the vulnerable be damned, and who cares about the murderous youtube psychopaths about. You have yapped about the impositions on the nonexistent continuously, always yabbering about what they don't need. And sterilization ain't for fetuses, my whacked-out brothah. But mental illness is still a terrible thing.
And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first place |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 4:27:17 GMT
tpfkar You're missing the point with Jack Kevorkian and Philip Nitschke (whom you omitted to mention). Philip Nitschke is the director of Exit International; an organisation which publishes a guide to suicide which is updated every 3 months, and of which I am a subscriber. I've read through the entire thing and not only does the 'trivially easy', painless and risk-free method without drugs not appear in the document, but if such a means existed and was widely known about, it would make the document redundant. As Philip Nitschke believes that the right to die should be universal and that people shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy only in very rare, circumscribed conditions in which they are about to die anyway, I've no reason to believe that he would withhold this information on purpose. So that really only leaves you with the theory that someone who has gone through medical school and practiced medicine for many years is still somehow so ignorant of how the human body works that even they don't know about this method. And Jack Kevorkian's patients were mostly able bodied, even if terminally ill. So they would have also been able to do this trivially easy and risk-free act themselves, in most cases. I've never made any statement about impositions to the non-existent. Once a foetus is conceived, it exists, and if allowed to be born, it will develop the capacity to feel imposed upon with the burdens of maintaining an unasked-for existence. Nah, I get your "points". Absolutely mind-blowing that those that support it support it, who would have ever thunkit. You must be trembling with something or another. Crazy that the guys who have an agenda breeze over the basic end-arounds to their lines. And as many times run over, people do of course have the right to die; they can't practically be stopped if they don't exhibit signs of mental illness. That doesn't mean Nembutal for all and the vulnerable be damned, and who cares about the murderous youtube psychopaths about. You have yapped about the impositions on the nonexistent continuously, always yabbering about what they don't need. And sterilization ain't for fetuses, my whacked-out brothah. But mental illness is still a terrible thing.
And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first placeIf there were an easy, reliable and pain free way of dying without the need for chemicals, it would have been publised in the Peaceful Pill eHandbook. "Right to die" means the right to Nembutal, or whatever else someone might want to use to bring about death. A "right" doesn't equate to something that you might choose to do in secrecy, using your own resourcefulness, which you would be stopped from completing if caught whilst doing it and likely imprisoned as a consequence thereof. No doubt that whilst homosexuality was still illegal, the Christian right wing were saying that homosexuals had a 'right' to have sex with each other based on the fact that they couldn't be practically stopped from doing so, provided that it was kept a secret and that every care was taken to make sure that nobody ever found out (because legal action would otherwise result). So why bother to legalise the act, if that's what a 'right' is. "Vulnerable be damned" means forcing the vulnerable to be tortured by their vulnerabilities with no recourse except 'treatments' that have already been tried and failed. It doesn't mean offering them the peaceful and humane end to their suffering that they have requested in no uncertain terms. But in your valuation system, suffering is meaningless and death is the only consideration, so an end to conscious experience where harm cannot be experienced is somehow the most harmful outcome of all, even when this is what the person concerned expressly wished for and was desperate to bring about. What the non-existent don't need isn't saying anything about impositions on the non-existent, it is stating that they can't be imposed upon and it isn't a condition from which anybody needs to be rescued. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 8:45:14 GMT
I offer this song as a tribute to this never-ending @miccee and cupcakes debate and as a mild-mannered suggestion on what to do with it: |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 9:50:38 GMT
tpfkar I offer this song as a tribute to this never-ending @miccee and cupcakes debate and as a mild-mannered suggestion on what to do with it: Hell, I've still got a couple in the queue. We'll do our call and response tune every time the mood swing has him bringing up the delusional murderous wackdoodle again. At least your Arlon doesn't call in for forced sterilization of all women and the mass murder of all.
Skullcrusher Mountain |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 9:52:47 GMT
tpfkar Just another flat-out lie from you, sur-prise sur-prise. You go on and on about the imposition done to the empty spaces in the future, and I just note that if you want to go that route then all must be considered about these future creatures. And that your personal psychopathic preferences mean nada save humor against the actual extant making the call when they're able. Peeps are having a blast; even you, it's just you enjoy your particular nurtured miserableness and delusions of having some impact (at least in the direction you think) outside of ranting youtube crazies. And just read again - it's not just the mentally competent that want their hands on the stuff, it's also the treatable despondent and as you demonstrate well, the wannabe lady-abusing mass-murdering loons. At least try to follow minimally. And you've ranted multiyear at this point about "imposition"s to the nonexistent, coupled with the not-imposition of exterminating them. Among countless other of your patent derangements.
On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"I haven't lied about anything. You've stated that there would be something wrong with a universe in which there is no sentient life, and when you justify bringing children into the world, you point out that they will have a chance to 'have a blast', as if there were any problem with non-existent people not getting to have that chance. If there is a moratorium on bringing sentient creatures into existence, then nothing needs to be considered about them, and there's no problem which will ever need to be solved on their behalf. Deciding to cause someone to exist is not a humanitarian rescue mission for deprived spiritual entities. And if you think that people should have the right to 'make the call', then that suggests giving them all the means that can possibly be provided in order to be facilitated in either choice; not giving them a problem that they must solve without any help at all. There's no secular reason why anyone shouldn't have that substance, as long as it was for strictly personal use. And it had already passed through customs, so wherefore the need to forcibly enter someone's home and steal it from someone who was only going to use it for themselves (and was 'mentally competent' by any reasonable standards)? You lie nearly nonstop. I said for normal non-deranged peeps that life is good and wiping out all life would be baaaaaad. Sane non-psychopathic non-wallowing human kind of a thing. Whatever you're tying to crap-squish in via vapid semantics with "wrong/problem" is just a bit part of your continuous crassly deranged boneheaded insipidity. You can "as if there were" out your twitted arse until your AI savior comes home. A universe with life is a great thing, at least life as we know it, and without would be berry berry sad, from the perspective of uncrushed undemented peepizoids, of course. And sorry, but patently coo-coo from you doesn't yield nonsecular, regardless of your indifference to (har, more like your enthusiasm for) the great cost to the vulnerable, and access by murderous crazies, and your personal wish that the mentally ill be available for fellow predators to be subject to whatever barbarity you can get the poor confused ill persons to assent to. What's wild is that even such psychopathy pales in comparison to your whimsical dreams of the forced mass-sterilization of women and mass-murder of countless of all types.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 9:58:00 GMT
tpfkar I offer this song as a tribute to this never-ending @miccee and cupcakes debate and as a mild-mannered suggestion on what to do with it: At least your Arlon doesn't call in for forced sterilization of all women and the mass murder of all.
Skullcrusher MountainArlon? When did he become mine? You guys can take him back, I don't want him! Good probability he hasn't had his shots.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 12:11:01 GMT
tpfkar At least your Arlon doesn't call in for forced sterilization of all women and the mass murder of all.
Skullcrusher MountainArlon? When did he become mine? You guys can take him back, I don't want him! Good probability he hasn't had his shots. My ties to real life science are far better than yours. I have a real life medical plan, doctor and get regular exams. I had all that before ACA too. I got all recommended shots, flu and otherwise, until that time I got the flu from one. I am now excused from getting further flu shots. My cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and heart rate are within safe limits, although my heart is a trifle higher than normal. It has been all my life and might be genetic. My temperature was about half a degree low, which is also with in safe limits. That was a few days ago, my temperature is normal now. I am less mean than you are, so don't forget how dangerous that can be. I successfully avoid the flu year after year by proven, dependable scientific methods other than vaccination. One more thing, you are consistently terrible at probabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 12:19:08 GMT
MY Arlon? When did he become mine? You guys can take him back, I don't want him! Good probability he hasn't had his shots. My ties to real life science are far better than yours. I have a real life medical plan, doctor and get regular exams. I had all that before ACA too. I got all recommended shots, flu and otherwise, until that time I got the flu from one. I am now excused from getting further flu shots. My cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and heart rate are within safe limits, although my heart is a trifle higher than normal. It has been all my life and might be genetic. My temperature was about half a degree low, which is also with in safe limits. That was a few days ago, my temperature is normal now. I am less mean than you are, so don't forget how dangerous that can be. I successfully avoid the flu year after year by proven, dependable scientific methods other than vaccination. Well, in that case, I guess you can stay. But no peeing on the furniture! One more thing, you are consistently terrible at probabilities. O'rly? I didn't notice you participating in the most recent probability-heavy thread here. I make my living doing probability calculations. What do you make a living at? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 15:57:14 GMT
My ties to real life science are far better than yours. I have a real life medical plan, doctor and get regular exams. I had all that before ACA too. I got all recommended shots, flu and otherwise, until that time I got the flu from one. I am now excused from getting further flu shots. My cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and heart rate are within safe limits, although my heart is a trifle higher than normal. It has been all my life and might be genetic. My temperature was about half a degree low, which is also with in safe limits. That was a few days ago, my temperature is normal now. I am less mean than you are, so don't forget how dangerous that can be. I successfully avoid the flu year after year by proven, dependable scientific methods other than vaccination. Well, in that case, I guess you can stay. But no peeing on the furniture! One more thing, you are consistently terrible at probabilities. O'rly? I didn't notice you participating in the most recent probability-heavy thread here. I make my living doing probability calculations. What do you make a living at? Pictures or it didn't happen. My life story is on my website with pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 16:09:04 GMT
Well, in that case, I guess you can stay. But no peeing on the furniture! O'rly? I didn't notice you participating in the most recent probability-heavy thread here. I make my living doing probability calculations. What do you make a living at? Pictures or it didn't happen. My life story is on my website with pictures. Pictures of what? Me sitting at my PC playing poker?  Funnily enough, after my childhood there are almost no photos of me. I don't take photos, and neither do most of my friends or immediate family... at least not much. It seems the social media craze of documenting every moment of one's life bypassed most of us, mercifully. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 16:18:22 GMT
Pictures or it didn't happen. My life story is on my website with pictures. Pictures of what? Me sitting at my PC playing poker? Funnily enough, after my childhood there are almost no photos of me. I don't take photos, and neither do most of my friends or immediate family... at least not much. It seems the social media craze of documenting every moment of one's life bypassed most of us, mercifully. When I put poker on the continuum of activities from those that require skill to those that require luck, poker isn't showing up very near the skill side. If you're making money, it's probably because you have the house. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 16:47:40 GMT
Pictures of what? Me sitting at my PC playing poker? Funnily enough, after my childhood there are almost no photos of me. I don't take photos, and neither do most of my friends or immediate family... at least not much. It seems the social media craze of documenting every moment of one's life bypassed most of us, mercifully. When I put poker on the continuum of activities from those that require skill to those that require luck, poker isn't showing up very near the skill side. It's OK Arlon, you've already proven you're a clueless dolt who makes claims based on nothing, often in direct opposition to any and all evidence to the contrary; you don't have to KEEP proving it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2018 16:56:47 GMT
When I put poker on the continuum of activities from those that require skill to those that require luck, poker isn't showing up very near the skill side. It's OK Arlon, you've already proven you're a clueless dolt who makes claims based on nothing, often in direct opposition to any and all evidence to the contrary; you don't have to KEEP proving it. Careful with that axe, Eugene. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 17:22:47 GMT
I offer this song as a tribute to this never-ending @miccee and cupcakes debate and as a mild-mannered suggestion on what to do with it: If I'm going to be petitioned by Youtube 'songs', then one with an actual tune would likely be more effective. Cupcakes is the worst person for never allowing anyone else to have the last word on anything, and I'm likely the second worst person on the board for that. In this case, it really irritates and offends me when people want to arbitrarily restrict the rights that I have over my own body, especially when they're doing it for what are essentially intangible reasons that derive from some kind of spiritual delusions about what life means. It is worse coming from someone who poses as being rational and mocks Christians for their beliefs, whilst repackaging and appropriating the same mystical delusions for the same purposes, compared to someone who is an avowed Christian (which means that they're tacitly admitting to not being interested in rationality) doing the same. I'm somewhat more understanding about people not wanting to sign up to antinatalism, although the objections to that are also wholly irrational and unethical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2018 17:30:51 GMT
tpfkar I haven't lied about anything. You've stated that there would be something wrong with a universe in which there is no sentient life, and when you justify bringing children into the world, you point out that they will have a chance to 'have a blast', as if there were any problem with non-existent people not getting to have that chance. If there is a moratorium on bringing sentient creatures into existence, then nothing needs to be considered about them, and there's no problem which will ever need to be solved on their behalf. Deciding to cause someone to exist is not a humanitarian rescue mission for deprived spiritual entities. And if you think that people should have the right to 'make the call', then that suggests giving them all the means that can possibly be provided in order to be facilitated in either choice; not giving them a problem that they must solve without any help at all. There's no secular reason why anyone shouldn't have that substance, as long as it was for strictly personal use. And it had already passed through customs, so wherefore the need to forcibly enter someone's home and steal it from someone who was only going to use it for themselves (and was 'mentally competent' by any reasonable standards)? You lie nearly nonstop. I said for normal non-deranged peeps that life is good and wiping out all life would be baaaaaad. Sane non-psychopathic non-wallowing human kind of a thing. Whatever you're tying to crap-squish in via vapid semantics with "wrong/problem" is just a bit part of your continuous crassly deranged boneheaded insipidity. You can "as if there were" out your twitted arse until your AI savior comes home. A universe with life is a great thing, at least life as we know it, and without would be berry berry sad, from the perspective of uncrushed undemented peepizoids, of course. And sorry, but patently coo-coo from you doesn't yield nonsecular, regardless of your indifference to (har, more like your enthusiasm for) the great cost to the vulnerable, and access by murderous crazies, and your personal wish that the mentally ill be available for fellow predators to be subject to whatever barbarity you can get the poor confused ill persons to assent to. What's wild is that even such psychopathy pales in comparison to your whimsical dreams of the forced mass-sterilization of women and mass-murder of countless of all types.
Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. In a universe without any sentient life, who would be the "uncrushed undemented peepizoids" who would be "berry berry sad" about the absence of life?  Would they be the disembodied souls floating about the ether that you're so desperate to save by forcing them into an existence for which they had never asked? The whole basis of my philosophy is a profound moral concern for the wellbeing of the vulnerable, whose wellbeing I deem to be equally as important as my own. So that comment is pure libel. They wouldn't be vulnerable in the first place if not for someone like you taking out a credit card in their name, then running up colossal debts on it without their permission, then forcing those vulnerables to be enslaved to that debt which can never be paid off before death. Yes, I even favour rather draconian and authoritarian methods of preventing people from running up that debt, and I also favour liberal laws allowing everyone has had these debts imposed on them to be able to opt-out at any time, with the full support of the legal system and medical-industrial establishment. If everyone would agree only to run up debts on their own credit cards, then there would be no need for mass sterlisation or mass-murder. Since you cannot tell me what the 'cost' is of ceasing to exist (at one's own request, of course), then the only 'costs' that you could possibly be referring to are paid off not by the vulnerables but by those who depend on enslaving the vulnerables (that would be people like yourself). |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 17:38:05 GMT
tpfkar Nope, the religious beez you in core belief, freaky manner, and ludicrous post content, over and over and over and over. Get it while you can before you're dirt (or locked up), my psychopathic brother. Enjoy your ErJy delusions of grandeur to stand out with your received knowledge and grand Objective, however deranged & gruesome. Pray for the AI Christ that will save you. And good to know you ultimately decided against the "cannibalizing and gut clinics". I had no idea you were considering such, I only knew you were good with your fellow psychopaths having their go if they could get the poor mentally ill to assent. But, And I know you're up for whatever fellow predators can get the mentally ill to agree to. And dream of sterilizing all women. And mass murdering everybody. And among many many lunacies, that you're not harming someone if they don't ever see what destroyed them. The very definition of both predatory and pure pathological wackdoodle.
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.I never objected to "get it while you can before you're dirt", and to keep raising that is a strawman. The only issues at stake are whether it's ethical to rope someone else into existence without their consent, or any reason to think that they needed that existence; and also whether or not everyone who is born ought to have the undisputed and fully legally supported right to terminate their existence in the easiest, most painless, most reliable and most convenient fashion that medical technology can provide. Your repeated mantra references neither of those ethical questions, and then you go on to assert a right to a) gamble with someone else's welfare by creating needs where previously there were none; and b) prevent people from accessing whatever means of assisting in dying would be of greatest convenience to them and would put their mind at rest. There is no coherent argument to be made for saying that it's in the best interests of someone who wants to die to be prevented from doing so in a swift and painless way. The person who dies by that means will never have any future interests which will supercede the ones that they were invested in at the time of requesting assistance to die. Of course you do when you project your innate cultism/religiosity for me or anybody or your precious "nonexistent" having the option of having a blast now and/or in the future until they're dirt or moan themselves to death. Jabber crazy with the "strawman sterilize the women kill everybody to save them" to your deranged sickly chestpump's content. And of course nothing of your own and everything else must be sacred in not throwing the highly vulnerable to the wolves, both of the metaphorical kind and of the literal that should be monitored in penal or medical facilities. Because wackdoodle. And of course more of the lunatic "benefit by terminating them without their consent" vs. "imposition" by letting them make the call when they have the ability, and protecting them when they don't. And I'm not concerned with "coherent" as emitted by youtube/message board playtime murderous psychopaths.
If true, then it is cute, cuddly, fuzzy and multicultural because Muslims are (mostly) brown. That takes precedence over any moral concern. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 17:49:18 GMT
tpfkar Cupcakes is the worst person for never allowing anyone else to have the last word on anything, and I'm likely the second worst person on the board for that. In this case, it really irritates and offends me when people want to arbitrarily restrict the rights that I have over my own body, especially when they're doing it for what are essentially intangible reasons that derive from some kind of spiritual delusions about what life means. It is worse coming from someone who poses as being rational and mocks Christians for their beliefs, whilst repackaging and appropriating the same mystical delusions for the same purposes, compared to someone who is an avowed Christian (which means that they're tacitly admitting to not being interested in rationality) doing the same. I'm somewhat more understanding about people not wanting to sign up to antinatalism, although the objections to that are also wholly irrational and unethical. I do love it! Why would anybody let patent crazy have the "last lying derangement" on anything?  Nobody's restricting your right to constantly bawl like a little girl or pretend-cut your wrists in private all you like, but if you start wearing short sleeves, somebody might involve the authorities. Mocking the arsehole religious of all types is a great pastime, especially the constantly moaning death-worshiping shattered-content psychopaths in their Objective dreams of mass forced sterilization and mass murder, having the mentally ill as fodder for whatever your fellow predators can convince them of, and a litany of other pathological crazy. It's part of the blast I'm ecstatic I was given the option of partaking in. And baby, I partake! And "antinatalism" i.e. impotent dreams of cartoon macabre supervillainy doesn't even make it up to unethical, it's so laughingly wackdoodle.
And to add to this, the people who give birth are the ones who are sentencing people to death in the first place |
|
