Originally posted by Darth Xena
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The right to die?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostThomas Hobbes. Ya coulda just googled it"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)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostWhat? 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.
Originally posted by SoRThis is ABC stuff, Teal. Either you didn't bother to read the arguments myself and others are presenting, or you're intentionally distorting them.
Originally posted by SoRHey, you insulted me. I just answered you back and included a question of my own.
Originally posted by SoRI 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."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)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostYou 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.
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)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostUh, 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.
"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)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostDang, I passed bio - it was chem I flunked. Maybe I should have hung in there?
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)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I should have known better.
I have a sick cat so I have to go."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)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostTwo 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.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View Post*snip*
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, 10:29 PM.The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostHow can there be a right to do what is never right to do?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
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 PostBecause 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.
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 PostFunny, but no. I have misread you a few times - usually caught too late. But I do read it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Translation: um, where was I?
Hope your cat is doing better. See you later.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostNo, 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).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Xena View PostThey 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.
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 little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
373 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment