Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The right to die?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
    On a related note, the Supreme Court may revisit polygamy. Yay.
    "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." -John Roberts in his dissent on Obergefell v. Hodges

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
      Thomas Hobbes. Ya coulda just googled it
      Not with my battery dying.

      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
        What? We are not talking about willing an organism to live, Teal. What we are talking about is forcing a person on to artificial life-support systems that they don't wish to have, or cases when people with chronic depression simply wish to use a non violent way of ending their own life without endangering others. That IS forcing a person to life whether you see it or not - I don't know how you don't.
        There, see - you can be precise when you want. You're still wrong on the conclusion - you still can't force them to live since people die on life support all the time.

        Originally posted by SoR
        This is ABC stuff, Teal. Either you didn't bother to read the arguments myself and others are presenting, or you're intentionally distorting them.
        No, you DON'T get to make a priori assumptions and force (here in its correct usage. ) others to accept them. You brought force into the argument which was silly. Even above, when you finally get to making the distinction, you're still using force as if it were at issue - it isn't. That is the ABC part here - the first point you raise above in non sequitur - the legal means to have life support removed exist and are NOT part of the 'assisted suicide' issue. The second is off base as well - lots of 'non-violent' (I'm guessing here you mean without a weapon since technically a suicide commits violence on their person) means already exist and people regrettably use those every day. This, too, is not what assisted suicide is about. Nor does the fact of suicide create a right to it.

        Originally posted by SoR
        Hey, you insulted me. I just answered you back and included a question of my own.
        Okay, fair enough - I intended it purely as sarcasm, not insult but I apologize and will be more careful in the future.

        Originally posted by SoR
        I read some Plato myself. Most of my life has been in the study of the physical sciences though, so I know jack-all about the rest - though I know of Locke. Now, if you ask about Weinberg, Feynman, Dirac, Hawking, Penrose and some others could tell you a thing or two. Science is what interest me, not the law or politics - though now I'm in programming.
        So, I at least took physics (read some Hawking, and a few others long ago) - and we both agree that doesn't make me a physicist. Yet you specifically argued about law and politics (pretty danged near impossible not to on this issue) and had the temerity to claim that points drawn from the fields themselves weren't relevant merely because you weren't acquainted with them. Might wanna rethink this one. There might be more to rights than you realize - and Carry and I might just know what we're talking about when we tell you that not everything is a right and being legal doesn't make something a right.

        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
          You sound ridiculous.

          Laws prohibiting what you can do to another member of society exist precisely because your neighbor has rights - one of which is the protection against bodily harm.
          No, no, no, and no.

          Laws can exist totally irrespective of rights - even in the US (which uses rights foundationally) not all laws have preservation of rights at their core - or even touch them tangentially. Laws cannot exist irrespective of power but they very much can exist irrespective of rights (should they is a different question).

          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Uh, yes you could have been. In many universities you don't need to even take biology classes if you are studying physics. Even where the introductory science courses include a section on biology you can still flunk that submodule and pass the course based on acing the maths/physics/chemistry/geology/astronomy/meteorology questions.
            Dang, I passed bio - it was chem I flunked. Maybe I should have hung in there?


            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Dang, I passed bio - it was chem I flunked. Maybe I should have hung in there?

              I learned more chemistry in one week of college than I did in all of High School.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                I know you're not really reading my posts - it comes right through the pixels. Every time you reply back you show me that you're arguing at me instead of with me. You don't take time to think about what I've written, you just look for something you can distort in your favor, and then reload for the next reply. I've seen it thousands of times before and your posts drip with it.
                Funny, but no. I have misread you a few times - usually caught too late. But I do read it.

                I assume theology because when you use God as the foundation to a philosophy you ARE doing theology. Stop BSing me, Teal. I know you're doing theology, and you know you're doing theology, so lets just stop this dance where you pretend you're either ignorant or dishonest. Don't insult my intelligence.
                Nonsense - go look at what started this. I wasn't arguing theology - I was pointing out that you didn't have a freaking basis because you need a god in order to make your danged premise true.


                We never talked about "willing" something to live. Never. Not once. The argument has always been about whether or not the government should be able to force people to live in the various scenarios that come up. It's posts like this that go to show you really do have a legal background. You just constantly tap-dance and play with terminology instead of just buckling-up. and facing an argument head-on that you disagree with.
                Dee Dee is arguing that destruction (not disposal - very different term) is a necessary component of ownership - which is nonsense. For destruction to be a necessary component creation must also be a necessary component - and since you can't will yourself to live, that component does not exist so necessarily neither does the right to destroy as a component of ownership.

                What she MEANT was disposal - but that doesn't apply to life since it can't be disposed - only destroyed. That should be obvious from the naturalist POV.

                You can pretend that words don't have meaning but it doesn't make it so. That you can't follow an argument doesn't make it tap dancing.
                From my experience with you discussing climate change I got the impression you base your conclusions on emotions and your philosophical commitments - which explains why it's impossible to argue with you.
                Because you can't possibly be wrong, and maybe, just maybe, there is another way of looking at the thing, right? It can't possibly be that humans being corruptible, should be evaluated as sources, can it?

                Nah, much easier to assume emotionalism rather than consider a different approach might have merit - even if not the kind you were looking at.

                This legal tap-dancing might pass for good debate technique in law, political science, or some obscure theology. But it never will in science. Law being older than science gives it nothing over it's methodology - which is far superior. Science learns from it's mistakes far quicker than the law ever does because it's methodology works to sort good ideas from bad ones sooner or later. In law, there are no guarantees bad ideas will bite the dust - like drug laws, gambling laws, etc. I'd get into that but I doubt it would serve much purpose.
                Yeah - eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good - science does a great job of cleaning cobwebs. Sometimes.

                But there's no point discussing evidentiary procedure with someone who hasn't the slightest grasp of the basics. That's your logic thrown back at you - personally, I think it's a stupid way to tackle an issue.

                The feeling is mutual. I've been all around the internet and argued with a large number of people discussing a diverse range of topics. While you're certainly not the worst debater I've ever dealt with, you haven't forced me to go into my philosophy at all. You're simply not very good at representing your own side enough for me to feel you're worth the time to write a detailed reply of my philosophy. I know I'd just waste my time and you'd burn straw for a few pages, and wouldn't bother to take-in what your reading.
                You've avoided any discussion of the principles - and not just with me. You don't understand this stuff - which is fine, no one knows everything - but you haven't the guts to admit that you might not know enough about law or politics to formulate the argument. You keep throwing out premises as if they were given and values as if they were universal - the world is much messier than that.

                I like you too as a person, Teal. You're a good lady. But these arguments you make have more holes in them than Swiss cheese, and they drip with your emotions and personal theology. Picking them apart is a task I'm not feeling up to at this moment in time.
                Translation: um, where was I?

                Yes, I should have known better.

                I have a sick cat so I have to go.
                Hope your cat is doing better. See you later.

                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                  Two LPCO conventions ago we had a right to die petitioner who rented a booth. I refused to sign her petition. I said no for many of the same reasons here ... and some not said here. I don't believe as a Christian in suicide being moral, and I think it can be abused. I then thought through the implications of freedom and rights and found neither were a justification for using the force of the state to codify into law.

                  I defend the right to die. I do not believe it a moral choice due to my religious beliefs. I do believe it can be abused. None of that takes away from that right, and the state has no business here.
                  How can there be a right to do what is never right to do?
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    *snip*
                    No I know what I meant. I meant disposal (which I was using in the sense of the right to do with as one sees fit as long as one doesn't infringe upon the rights of another person).

                    I am not responding further, because maybe just a misreading, maybe just a personality conflict, but I found the way you spoke to Sea here incredibly high-handed and insulting and I'm not interested in that. Too much time wasted getting through the rhetoric.
                    Last edited by Darth Xena; 11-01-2016, 11:29 PM.
                    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      How can there be a right to do what is never right to do?
                      Because not everything that is immoral or "not right" should be illegal. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not moral - particularly when the morality here is a vertical morality primarily.
                      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        "It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." -John Roberts in his dissent on Obergefell v. Hodges
                        Precisely.

                        Though my goal isn't to *legalize* further groupings, but to get the state out entirely to show the absurdity of the state being in sanctioning licensing personal relationship to begin with.
                        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                          Because not everything that is immoral or "not right" should be illegal. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not moral - particularly when the morality here is a vertical morality primarily.
                          There are some immoral acts against which we cannot hope to consistently enforce laws, and so it is imprudent to try to enact or enforce such laws. However, that does not mean that people somehow have a right to do those things we cannot prohibit.

                          Also, it seems to me that assisted suicide is an act against which we can reasonably expect to enforce laws.
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Funny, but no. I have misread you a few times - usually caught too late. But I do read it.
                            You seem to read it with very little charity and you constantly twist words to fit your particular meaning.

                            Nonsense - go look at what started this. I wasn't arguing theology - I was pointing out that you didn't have a freaking basis because you need a god in order to make your danged premise true.
                            I didn't need to give you or anyone else a basis for anything I do with my life. If it doesn't effect your freedom, you should get no say-so in the matter. We'll never understand each others metaphysics or moral philosophy - that's fine by me. They can co-exist in the world without you having to go and make mine against the law. If my (or others) choices bother you too much then consider some therapy otherwise, mind your own business.
                            Dee Dee is arguing that destruction (not disposal - very different term) is a necessary component of ownership - which is nonsense. For destruction to be a necessary component creation must also be a necessary component - and since you can't will yourself to live, that component does not exist so necessarily neither does the right to destroy as a component of ownership.
                            We all disagree on where we came from - which is why this forum exists. Some of us believe in divine beings that have ownership of the world, while others believe the world is natural. I fall into the latter category and don't believe I have some being I have to explain myself to, nor do I believe in your ideas of ownership or souls from a creator. It's my life and I'm the captain of my ship. Don't like it? Too bad. Freedom means living with things you don't necessarily approve of sometimes.

                            What she MEANT was disposal - but that doesn't apply to life since it can't be disposed - only destroyed. That should be obvious from the naturalist POV.
                            I think Dee Dee knows what she meant better than you do. Tip: wait a few posts before you start making assumptions about what people believe, or ask for a clarification. It's really irritating for people on the other end.
                            You can pretend that words don't have meaning but it doesn't make it so. That you can't follow an argument doesn't make it tap dancing.
                            Because you can't possibly be wrong, and maybe, just maybe, there is another way of looking at the thing, right? It can't possibly be that humans being corruptible, should be evaluated as sources, can it?
                            I've never implied the language in use here doesn't have meaning. What you really have a problem with is that I don't use your exact definitions of particular terms, and I don't let you get away with it when you use inappropriate usage of them.

                            Nah, much easier to assume emotionalism rather than consider a different approach might have merit - even if not the kind you were looking at.
                            I don't have to assume your emotions are leading your arguments, you do a fine job of demonstrating that yourself, Teal. I've come across this stuff before. You think you're some warrior that is protecting people from themselves and the evil people that dare to advocate others be afforded the right to choose their own destiny. You think your personal philosophy overrules anybody else's because it's good enough to convince you.

                            Save somebody that wants your help.

                            Yeah - eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good - science does a great job of cleaning cobwebs. Sometimes.
                            I don't know what on Earth you were trying to convey but you failed miserably.

                            But there's no point discussing evidentiary procedure with someone who hasn't the slightest grasp of the basics. That's your logic thrown back at you - personally, I think it's a stupid way to tackle an issue.
                            Oh I agree.
                            You've avoided any discussion of the principles - and not just with me. You don't understand this stuff - which is fine, no one knows everything - but you haven't the guts to admit that you might not know enough about law or politics to formulate the argument. You keep throwing out premises as if they were given and values as if they were universal - the world is much messier than that.
                            Every post you write consists of you making assumptions on what others believe, burning straw-man you create from your own misunderstanding of peoples arguments, using the most uncharitable interpretations of terms you can think of, and just using your personal philosophy as if it were evidence.

                            Translation: um, where was I?
                            Don't ever apply for a job as a translator, Teal.

                            Hope your cat is doing better. See you later.
                            She's fine, thanks.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              No, no, no, and no.

                              Laws can exist totally irrespective of rights - even in the US (which uses rights foundationally) not all laws have preservation of rights at their core - or even touch them tangentially. Laws cannot exist irrespective of power but they very much can exist irrespective of rights (should they is a different question).
                              To suggest that being protected from murders isn't a right that the government is responsible for is... absurd beyond words.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
                                They could charge you if unsuccessful. Attempting a crime is a crime. But no, more likely they will make information on the exercise of your right unlawful and criminalize anyone who might assist you.



                                Yes, if they are willing.



                                Well you're getting there then. And all rights can be abused. Like freedom of speech for instance. Which is why CO thinks it is okay to threaten innocent uses of it with jail time. Which is why we cannot do that.
                                well in the case of someone terminally ill, I doubt they would press charges or do anything to an unsuccessful attempt. If it is an otherwise healthy person, they will likely charge them just to get them psychiatric help, which I would agree with. Too many people commit suicide on the spur of the moment because they are depressed or embarrassed or something that they can get over with help.

                                But the worry I have against assisted suicide is that it could become the New Abortion. Grandpa is taking up too much of our time and money, so let's Euthanize him. It would be easy to convince an elderly person or a sick person that they should ask for euthanization to relieve the burden on their loved ones. So it becomes more of a convenience thing instead of a mercy thing.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:50 AM
                                8 responses
                                121 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-16-2021, 04:20 PM
                                59 responses
                                450 views
                                5 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 01-16-2021, 09:35 AM
                                8 responses
                                92 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-15-2021, 06:39 PM
                                18 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-15-2021, 02:30 PM
                                7 responses
                                67 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X