Poll: Terry Pratchet what the...

[Brian8bit]

So we are onto hope and speculation now.

As opposed to doubt and speculation?

 

[spudbynight]

Because if you're religious any argument you have against assisted suicide based on a monotheistic belief is moot.

I have already said my viewpoint is not based on anything other than my own personal and well reasoned moral argument.

Your view that anyone who has a religious belief is to be ignored is just downright offensive - congratulations - you just made my ignore list.

 

[Marine Iguana]

This message is hidden because britboy4321 is on your ignore list. Think spudbynight is going there too

 

[krooton]

I have already said my viewpoint is not based on anything other than my own personal and well reasoned moral argument.

Your view that anyone who has a religious belief is to be ignored is just downright offensive - congratulations - you just made my ignore list.

Not ignored, just factored in when they discuss topics that will be heavily influenced by their religious leanings, regardless of how much they profess that they don't.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You believe that as long as people consent to being killed there is no crime to answer?

Let us take the case of Armin Meiwes. He killed and ate a victim in Germany. The victim was willing and in fact volunteered to be killed and eaten. By your logic there is no crime to answer and Armin Meiwes shouldn't be in jail.

Interesting.

I nearly brought up the German eating case earlier as a counterexample.

In assisted suicide cases, you make the choice to kill yourself. Dignitas merely provide you with the means of doing so.

Did the victim of Armin Meiwes kill and eat himself? No, he did not.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Because if you're religious any argument you have against assisted suicide based on a monotheistic belief is moot.

It's not moot. It just has different axioms at its root. To say it is moot because you dislike the underlying assumptions is flawed.

That's not to say that all religious people always reason out their beliefs, but that's another argument for another day...

 

[krooton]

I believe it is you who is morally lacking. I believe that all murder is wrong. You are the one who is trying to pick and choose which particular forms of murder are acceptable.

While we're all throwing about ridiculous hypothetical situations:

The UK is invaded by an enemy army. It was not provoked, but it's a case of kill or be killed. Is 'murder' (as you wish to tar any form of taking a life) to defend yourself/your loved ones just as bad as just walking in to a street the blowing the brains of the nearest person out?

What if whilst in this war, one of your squadmates is badly hit, he's bleeding out bad, in lots of pain, and is going to die no matter what. Either let him lay there suffering for the next hour until he dies, or put him out of his misery?

 

[pingwing]

I think that it is logical to assume based on the facts the the eaten man was deriving some sort of sexual satisfaction - why else would he have tried to eat his own penis? How can you say that he would not have preferred to that to taking a foul tasting poison such as that shown last night?

But your argument is flawed, cannibalism is illegal and completely against any social norms (there are small examples of where it does happen but not as a regular occurrence).

Your example shows that coercion can happen, which is valid, but it's coercion though sexual perversion that has resulted in death opposed to death being the sole aim, which is why you cant give that german bloke as an example of euthanasia as it is not assisted death in the way that Pratchett is investigating.

 

[Brian8bit]

I have already said my viewpoint is not based on anything other than my own personal and well reasoned moral argument.

Your view that anyone who has a religious belief is to be ignored is just downright offensive - congratulations - you just made my ignore list.

So you're a moralist...

"A moraliser is a person who seeks to impose upon others his view of how they should live and behave. Everyone is entitled to a view about what counts as acceptable behaviour and everyone is entitled to put it forward as eloquently and forcefully as he can. But moralisers go much further. They want others to conform to their views and they seek to bring this about by coercion - employing means which range from social disapproval to legal control, this latter often being their preferred option. In forcing others to comply with their preferences they show at least several of the following: insensitivity, intolerance, unkindness, lack of imagination, failure of sympathy, absence of understanding, ignorance of alternative interests and needs in human experience and arrogance in believing that theirs is the only acceptable way. They defend their actions by saying that they are trying to defend others from harm, thereby claiming not only a monopoly on moral judgement, but the right to decide on others' behalf what is good for them."



I suggest you read Schopenhauer and Hume's essays on Suicide and at least take the initiative to read and digest well thought out and constructed arguments regarding suicide. Instead of your own ignorant blinkered belief.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I believe it is you who is morally lacking. I believe that all murder is wrong. You are the one who is trying to pick and choose which particular forms of murder are acceptable.

It's not murder. Dignitas is not murder. They do not kill anyone, they just give the tools for someone to do it themselves.

Well for a start I said masochism not sadomasochism. If someone is suffering from emotional pain and torment and wants to end it then by your logic who are you are I to judge how they do that?

I said they should have the right to decide to end their life. I didn't state which way that should be done. I believe that this should only be legal through a very heavily regulated government scheme, not private companies, let alone by private individuals.

Dignitas will bump off anyone who decides they want to go and they are able to make a rational decision on that. Dignitas has no requirement for people to be ill or suffering.

Anyone can commit suicude if they wish, Dignitas just help people who don't want to throw themselves into the 08:48 to London Waterloo or don't have the physical mobility to kill themselves.

I think that it is logical to assume based on the facts the the eaten man was deriving some sort of sexual satisfaction - why else would he have tried to eat his own penis? How can you say that he would not have preferred to that to taking a foul tasting poison such as that shown last night?

That is far beyond the scheme I am envisaging.

So we are onto hope and speculation now.

It's a totally hypothetical situation in the UK, so yes.

 

[spudbynight]

Not at all, I was just suggesting why others may be interested in your religious views (which are quite firmly Christian if I recall?). I was certainly not using it to discredit your points as it is much easier to do that without even refering to your religion. For example the deliberate misrepresentation of Mr and Mrs Downes as "just old" and your using of spurious examples of odd human behaviour as relevant to the topic of assisted dying.

Considering the above tactics, no, really, shame on you.

Your logical reasoning seems almost as flawed as britboy and I would question the morality of anyone that is happy to force people to live on in pain without giving them a solid reason as to why they should.

Funny that I managed to quote an Oxford Professor of Ethics with the same views. I assume his logical reasoning is equally flawed?

Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to string a decent argument together on this. I am sure you have convinced yourself that you in the right on this - thing is you are not. I do however respect your right to an opinion but I will argue against it as long as I am able.

I did not misrepresent Mr and Mrs Downes[sic] in any way. Did you read the article I linked to? Sir Edward was 85 and "almost blind" and "increasingly deaf. Have you any idea how many people of 85 could be described as such?

 

[Burnsy2023]

I did not misrepresent Mr and Mrs Downes[sic] in any way. Did you read the article I linked to? Sir Edward was 85 and "almost blind" and "increasingly deaf. Have you any idea how many people of 85 could be described as such?

People's quality of life can be affected differently even if they have the same ailment. Senses mean different things to different people. My quality of life would be damaged by losing my hearing but to a life long concert pianist it could be soul destroying. My choice may be to live a restricted but otherwise happy life. The concert pianist may decide that his quality of life would be so adversely affected that even after a couple of years of counselling that he doesn't wish to go on. That is his/her decision.

 

[Glaucus]

Put it this way would you like to live blind and deaf, pretty much 18hours a day being locked up in you own mind, with little interaction with the world. You can't even be taught braille or anything else. Sounds like hell to me.

 

[krooton]

I did not misrepresent Mr and Mrs Downes[sic] in any way. Did you read the article I linked to? Sir Edward was 85 and "almost blind" and "increasingly deaf. Have you any idea how many people of 85 could be described as such?

His wife (and carer) and aggressive pancreatic cancer that would see her dead in weeks.

Not only was he dependent on her, but I'm guessing he would also rather not live in a world without her, so they decided to spend the the remainder of their lives, and death, together.

Pretty heart-warming imo.

 

[spudbynight]

It's not murder. Dignitas is not murder. They do not kill anyone, they just give the tools for someone to do it themselves.

So now you use semantics to try and prove your point?

I said they should have the right to decide to end their life. I didn't state which way that should be done. I believe that this should only be legal through a very heavily regulated government scheme, not private companies, let alone by private individuals.

So I take it then you are opposed to anyone travelling to Dignitas now?

Anyone can commit suicude if they wish, Dignitas just help people who don't want to throw themselves into the 08:48 to London Waterloo or don't have the physical mobility to kill themselves.

You see this is where we are never going to agree. I know exactly what Dignitas do and I see no difference between that and for example someone asking them to give them a push off the platform in front of a train as they feel scared.

That is far beyond the scheme I am envisaging.

It's a totally hypothetical situation in the UK, so yes.

I think for me this thread has run it's course. I believe that killing someone is wrong, whether directly or indirectly.

You and others believe otherwise. You are not going to change my view and I am not going to change yours.

 

[Brian8bit]

Oh he's religious...

 

[Burnsy2023]

So now you use semantics to try and prove your point?

Semantics by definition are the meaning of my post. Semantics are important.

So I take it then you are opposed to anyone travelling to Dignitas now?

I was referring exclusively to the UK.

You see this is where we are never going to agree. I know exactly what Dignitas do and I see no difference between that and for example someone asking them to give them a push off the platform in front of a train as they feel scared.

I think for me this thread has run it's course. I believe that killing someone is wrong, whether directly or indirectly.

You and others believe otherwise. You are not going to change my view and I am not going to change yours.

I think we just have a difference of opinion here then.

 

[krooton]

I think for me this thread has run it's course. I believe that killing someone is wrong, whether directly or indirectly.

You and others believe otherwise. You are not going to change my view and I am not going to change yours.

Should I take that as your response to my war analogy then?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Oh he's religious...

I don't see why that matters per se. Lots of people in the country are religious.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You see this is where we are never going to agree. I know exactly what Dignitas do and I see no difference between that and for example someone asking them to give them a push off the platform in front of a train as they feel scared.

It's more akin to a person asking for directions to the train station, or asking for a train timetable.

After all, no one at Dignitas is forcing anyone to drink anything.