Poll: Terry Pratchet what the...

[RDM]

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

I would hope that an Oxford Professor of Ethics would have better logical reasoning that you have so far shown in this thread.

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.

Somewhat rich coming from yourself.

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?

I did read it and yes you did indeed misrepresent Mr and Mrs Downes. Unless someone terminally ill with pancreatic cancer is "just old". Do you have any idea how many people of 85 could be described as "almost blind" and "increasingly deaf"?

 

[b.cummins]

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?

I'm a bit concerned if you think this is a valid comeback. You are claiming that you merely cite the views of an Oxford Professor which ascribe to some form of "logical reasoning" and therefore pass off your own opinions as fact; making a baseline assumption that because your opinion is shared by a professor, it must be fact. You have no other precedent to support this argument. You then go on to assume that your opinion is the "right" point of view.

What we are talking about here is an ethical issue; procuring an argument with two sides. Both sides are informed by opinions, some which tie in with moral concepts of established beliefs, such as religion, others relating to personal conjecture and aphorisms. It is not exactly fair or proportionate to discredit any one view over the other. I fully respect that an individual may be composed of moralistic views which would position them against euthanasia or assisted suicide. I hold views in favour of them, as do many respected moral philosophers across the globe today.

The fact that you are passing off conjecture as fact is laughable, only demonstrating you are completely lacking a grasp of the conceptual reasoning behind moral philosophy and ethics. I'd like to make you aware of this so you don't go on believing you're making a valid contribution to your "side" of the argument.

 

[Brian8bit]

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

Because trying to argue with them is impossible. Instead of rational well constructed arguments we instead get 14 pages of hyperbole and hypothesising and a storming off proclaiming "I think this thread has run it's course". I doubt he's ever read in-depth any works on suicide and simply has his ignorant vehement opinion that's been indoctrinated from the pulpit or equally as ignorant family.

And the religious ones are always the ones harping on about their moral superiority. For me, when someone starts kicking about morals it's the same as Godwin'ing a thread.

 

[Valentino]

I think spudbynight is right on some counts. If you allow dignitas you have to allow every form of suicide. Wanting to die by being killed and then eating is the same as wanting to die by going to sweeden and being pumped with poison. Both end results are the same, both parties have died how they wanted and been assisted in their suicide.

I am of the opinion that you can do whatever you want, but so can everyone else. You want to steal someones car, fine, but if they want to kill you in return you better watch out.

First it would cause anarchism, but it should lead to Eden.

 

[Valentino]

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.

Please remember your belief is just the opposite of his. There is no wrong or right answer to this question. Some people will always be opposed to the death of a human, and others won't.

 

[krooton]

I think spudbynight is right on some counts. If you allow dignitas you have to allow every form of suicide. Wanting to die by being killed and then eating is the same as wanting to die by going to sweeden and being pumped with poison. Both end results are the same, both parties have died how they wanted and been assisted in their suicide.

I am of the opinion that you can do whatever you want, but so can everyone else. You want to steal someones car, fine, but if they want to kill you in return you better watch out.

First it would cause anarchism, but it should lead to Eden.

o_0

 

[Burnsy2023]

Because trying to argue with them is impossible. Instead of rational well constructed arguments we instead get 14 pages of hyperbole and hypothesising and a storming off proclaiming "I think this thread has run it's course". I doubt he's ever read in-depth any works on suicide and simply has his ignorant vehement opinion that's been indoctrinated from the pulpit or equally as ignorant family.

And the religious ones are always the ones harping on about their moral superiority. For me, when someone starts kicking about morals it's the same as Godwin'ing a thread.

That's more reflective on them as a debater than religion. I know some people who can debate really very well whilst being Christian. You're dismissiveness is not helping your argument.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I think spudbynight is right on some counts. If you allow dignitas you have to allow every form of suicide. Wanting to die by being killed and then eating is the same as wanting to die by going to sweeden and being pumped with poison. Both end results are the same, both parties have died how they wanted and been assisted in their suicide.

It worries me that people cannot see the difference here.

I am of the opinion that you can do whatever you want, but so can everyone else. You want to steal someones car, fine, but if they want to kill you in return you better watch out.

First it would cause anarchism, but it should lead to Eden.

I don't know what how to respond to that. LOL?

 

[Glaucus]

Finally watched it
1) he didn't beg for water, he asked for it.
2) he was given water. After drinking it, so I'm not sure your argument of it is the best medicine is bpvalid, again stomach pumps and the like are much more important.

 

[Brian8bit]

That's more reflective on them as a debater than religion. I know some people who can debate really very well whilst being Christian. You're dismissiveness is not helping your argument.

They could be Hindu, Sikh or Jew and still debate well, but they all inevitably return to their good book and the moral high ground. The more you question and philosophise their reasoning and rational the more they retreat into dogma. You can't argue with people like that. And ultimately it's pointless. Which is why I asked if he was religious earlier on. So I wouldn't have to waste time.

 

[Glaucus]

They could be Hindu, Sikh or Jew and still debate well, but they all inevitably return to their good book and the moral high ground. The more you question and philosophise their reasoning and rational the more they retreat into dogma. You can't argue with people like that. And ultimately it's pointless. Which is why I asked if he was religious earlier on. So I wouldn't have to waste time.

That's not the case, many know that scripture is their moral ground and not even believes the same and as such are bound by the same morals.

 

[Vonhelmet]

They could be Hindu, Sikh or Jew and still debate well, but they all inevitably return to their good book and the moral high ground. The more you question and philosophise their reasoning and rational the more they retreat into dogma. You can't argue with people like that. And ultimately it's pointless. Which is why I asked if he was religious earlier on. So I wouldn't have to waste time.

It's probably only fair that I give you the heads up that I'm a Christian.

 

[Curio]

My own personal view...

You should be allowed to have an option on your medical file for "assisted death for terminal condition" - if you end up having said condition then two docs have to sign off saying you are suffering and also mentally aware enough to verify your wishes.

It's unnecessarily cruel to make somebody suffer through a long and painful death when they could go peacefully with their family and friends around them.

This is going to happen one day and we'll look back in horror at the time when we made people suffer through terminal conditions.

 

[hurfdurf]

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

Being religious demonstrates a distinct lack of logic and critical thinking. It also inserts a moral framework opposed to those qualities based on the flawed line of thinking.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Being religious demonstrates a distinct lack of logic and critical thinking. It also inserts a moral framework opposed to those qualities based on the flawed line of thinking.

*wave*

 

[RDM]

*wave*

You are only waving because God told you to!

 

[ToxicTBag]

*Waving back*

 

[Burnsy2023]

Being religious demonstrates a distinct lack of logic and critical thinking. It also inserts a moral framework opposed to those qualities based on the flawed line of thinking.

That in itself is a flawed line of thinking. Maybe it is better when people don't tell you they're religious.

 

[Pighardia]

Do you think Dignitas will accept me if i just print off this thread with a covering letter simply saying "I've had enough"

 

[hurfdurf]

*waving back*

That in itself is a flawed line of thinking.

Explain?