I'm like 99.99% percent certain counseling on your end was literally -never- brought up once.

I should also point out that there would certainly be a prescription process for obtaining the meds to end a life and you could easily build in counseling and other treatment as necessary precursors for ending your life, really not going to be an over the counter thing.

the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects, and options

I guess this is that one time in a thousand you are mistaken.

A. I dont want to dismantle society.

B. Yes all gender identifications are equally valid.

C. I feel I'm fairly unambiguous most of the time. I will be happy to clarify a non zero and non infinite number of points for you.

I do think suicide bombers have a right to take their own lives, just like anyone else, its the murdering of all the other people that I have an objection to, so no, I dont need to backtrack.

Hey I found the original quote! Turns out I was responding to a post from you and I was discussing the right of individuals in general to kill themselves. Suicide bombers being a subset of people and all. I'm sure you didn't mean to take what I said out of context.

I guess this is that one time in a thousand you are mistaken.

A. I dont want to dismantle society.

B. Yes all gender identifications are equally valid.

C. I feel I'm fairly unambiguous most of the time. I will be happy to clarify a non zero and non infinite number of points for you.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Hey I found the original quote! Turns out I was responding to a post from you and I was discussing the right of individuals in general to kill themselves. Suicide bombers being a subset of people and all. I'm sure you didn't mean to take what I said out of context.

1. While it certainly wasn't focus and that idea seems contradictory to other points I remember you making. I concede, you brought it up. (Though, you absolutely did not elaborate or go into detail on such.)

Bring us ever closer to that glorious day when the moribund edifice they call 'society' comes crashing down!

2. Forgive my wording, would have been more accurate to say you want a dismantled society thus removing the personal activism/effort that would come with such claims. So yes, not you personally doing so. But you yourself cheered on the idea of the downfall of current society.

3. I don't mean to be a prick, most of the time, but then can you perhaps admit a Nazi to you. Isn't just used as a dictionary definition, if not by you personally. (though if gender can mean anything, why not another label?) Then certainly plenty of others do so. I'm not necessarily trying to turn my nose at you for burning any bridge, rather than attempting to first mend a relationship that skews to political extremism. But, merely pointing out that obvious contradiction of that confusion.

Just read that line you posted again, even without context. It's so clearly -not- the first/inciting statement you made regarding suicide bombings. Because "so, no I don't have to backtrack" is there, which clearly indicates that the line itself is you attempting to defend a previous statement. And with how you respond, likely not exactly very clear on top of that.

But EVEN then, you're already going back on the statement you've said. In that line's case, you say everyone has the right to off themselves even suicide bombers. While now, correctly, if not pointlessly/missing the point in the process, mention that possession of such device is likely illegal and therefore isn't a valid way to commit suicide. :/

So I didn't misquote you. I may have paraphrased with mildly snarky hyperbole, but it wasn't any less vague and absolutely morally broken and reason shattering of a thing to say.

Years of this have made conservatives as wary of the "nazi" label

Of course, even actual Nazis dont like to be called Nazis. They prefer less loaded terms these days. In my statement I was alluding to actual legitimate kill all the jews Nazis as a rhetorical device.

as you probably are of words like "socialist" (when used as a negative anyway).

I am a socialist in the European social democracy sense of the word. I'm fine with it :)

So like, if we took the stereotypical screaming liberal and the stereotypical screaming conservative and filled the whole country with 'em in equal measures, and no one from either camp would so much as sit down with someone from the other, they'd all probably think themselves pretty virtuous (AT LEAST I AIN'T SITTIN WITH THE GODDAMN COMMIES) and also they'd eventually wipe each other out.

Ok. Even if that is true which I dont think it is I don't need to engage in personal relationships with people whose political views are completely abhorrent to me. I am required to maintain professional ones of course. People are very reluctant to give up deeply views in one one debates there are better places I can invest my time.

CaN't We AlL jUsT gEt AlOnG?? But seriously like.... at a certain point politics becomes dogma, and then you're really just marketing all the worst parts about religion. Something like "I wouldn't even EAT DINNER with them!" seems like a step in that direction, at a glance. Of course if it's a literal actual goddamn Nazi, who cares, just, ya know, stating the obvious I guess in hopes of a circlejerky thumbs-up vote.

I am using a literal nazi as a rhetorical device to demonstrate that there do exist people who are so despicable that I would not share a meal with them. You are correct in inferring that I would put people other than Nazis in this category as my previous posts confirm.

@SleepingSilence I can't find the original quote but it is fair to say that any time I use a phrasing like 'moribund edifice' I am being sarcastic. Likely in response to right wing whining about how liberals are trying to destroy America/Britain/Wherever.

As you still seem to be confused allow me to restate my point about suicide bombers.

I believe :

All people have a right to kill themselves. Suicide bombings are committed by people. Those people have the same right to kill themselves as everyone else. They don't have a right to murder other people or to destroy other peoples property.

Perhaps you thought I was saying I believe people have a right to commit suicide bombing attacks? I do not.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

@Penny There's other posts that seem to imply you'd be more than okay to tear apart established rules in law and culture. Like biology. It's not even that out of left field, many people want to destroy America's current culture, because they believe it's patriarchal and etc etc. So stripping america of what made it america is a tactic, plenty want and are actively using.

*Progressives

The damage property was something just now added. So that does change the original given stance. (and you still didn't include, harm others for a reason I hope was related to effort, not thought.) But it's so obviously contradictory because bombs, are obviously bound to cause damage. A non-harming exploding vest is an absurd oxymoron.

So, foregoing getting back into that topic. It wasn't a claim and statement based in reality.

Edit: Also, while re-reading, I completely blanked out that I had this conversation with several others. Some who make equally ludicrous claims. So preemptive apology, if it feels like I'm putting a target on your back. At least, you didn't say "Oh, not all suicide is bad..."(though you may have thumbed it up.) Hmm...

3. I don't mean to be a prick

Why ever not? You have prodigious talent!

Look at the way you deliberately misrepresent my position even when I make an effort to clarify it for you? Look at the use of strike through? Look at how you casually suggest that I have never had anything substantive to contribute. You could be the greatest!

@Penny There's other posts that seem to imply you'd be more than okay to tear apart established rules in law and culture. Like biology. It's not even that out of left field, many people want to destroy America's current culture... blah blah blah

Refer to :

in response to right wing whining about how liberals are trying to destroy America/Britain/Wherever.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Ok. Even if that is true which I dont think it is I don't need to engage in personal relationships with people whose political views are completely abhorrent to me. I am required to maintain professional ones of course.

And participate in their weddings, as the case may be. Come to think of it I've never heard of an atheist bakery whining about business at a Christian wedding, so..... yeah that checks out.

I am using a literal nazi as a rhetorical device to demonstrate that there do exist people who are so despicable that I would not share a meal with them. You are correct in inferring that I would put people other than Nazis in this category as my previous posts confirm.

Real talk -- where do you draw that line? I imagine "grab 'em by the pussy" is probably a dealbreaker. What about (and I don't wanna be leading here, just spitballing) like a gun owner, or a sock-sandal person, or a male cat person -- if you're in charge of the arrangements and there are no laws/lawsuits to impact your decision, who gets sent to the Nazi table?

@Penny *reads first sentence* Thank you. I usually do at least put effort in doing so. Everyone can be an ass, but not everyone has the self awareness and effort it takes to craft such lines... :3 *reads the rest* Oh dammit, it wasn't snark, it was an actual serious position...like you're on a pedestal shouting moral critique from on high.

Black pots calling kettles black, inside their glass houses. When it comes to misrepresentation and everything else you're accusing me of. (if you don't remember that conversation, in your own words, there's a lot of that.)

Also you "unintentionally" misquoted me, by adding blah blah blah. Which again, you were actually trying to take moral high ground for a misrepresentation, which I didn't do and you haven't proved...

If you wanted to just be snarky, you could have at least added ( ) to imply some kind of separation. I digress.

But thank you for posting things all at once? (For my fake mantra of the day: Don't bitch about something, if you can't mention self-improvement.)

Here I'll start again, clearing all possible sarcasm and ask you a simple question regarding something in this topic that actually can be debated:

You mentioned the tumblr genders being real. Well please, since I haven't heard such elaboration. Please tell me all these genders. Explain the scientific backing of them...

genderfluidsupport.tumblr.com/gender

Take as much time as you need.

(I should probably clarify that I don't think that patients dying of cancer who opt for euthanasia have the right to set the building on fire with their last breaths. Just making sure we are on the same page.)

Here I'll start again,

Sorry but you are clearly not arguing in good faith.

@Penny *finger snaps* Well maybe some other time. Have a good night.

(I should probably clarify that I don't think that patients dying of cancer who opt for euthanasia have the right to set the building on fire with their last breaths. Just making sure we are on the same page.)

@SleepingSilence I went back and added the () in case you weren't able to figure out I was being sarcastic. (I hope that helps.)

<Snipped quote by Penny>

@SleepingSilence I went back and added the () in case you weren't able to figure out I was being sarcastic. (I hope that helps.)

I honestly thought you meant, the blah blah blah, which I already pointed out as snark already. But I again would have given mild credit with my own snark. But, since its refering to "I wouldn't want old people to commit suicide by burning down their house with them inside, because I acknowledge there's potential danger." now I you've gotten me to question, which part was sarcastic? <.<' Because ( ) isn't used by me, for sarcasm. To clarify. It's suppose (or well I usually use it) to separate thoughts. Like "I hope that helps", works fine with snark.

The statement you gave was hyperbolic, sure. But there was no irony or "'the weather's fine' while drippin wet" sarcasm present. It basically just said. 'You wouldn't want people to use a more destructive methods of suicide. ' So...did you -not- mean that?

You did specify, in your previous argument, which by the by, you didn't say it was a personal believe. You thought it was already in law. That we had a right to kill ourselves. And that you couldn't stop people, nor even judge them because suicide wasn't PC enough term for you, from jumping into traffic and jumping from your school or work building so everyone can see it. <.<'

And participate in their weddings, as the case may be. Come to think of it I've never heard of an atheist bakery whining about business at a Christian wedding, so..... yeah that checks out.

If someone I don't like invites me to their wedding I don't go. That is in my private capacity. If someone I don't like comes into the ER I treat them to the best of my ability. That is my professional capacity.

Real talk -- where do you draw that line? I imagine "grab 'em by the pussy" is probably a dealbreaker. What about (and I don't wanna be leading here, just spitballing) like a gun owner, or a sock-sandal person, or a male cat person -- if you're in charge of the arrangements and there are no laws/lawsuits to impact your decision, who gets sent to the Nazi table?

Pussy grabbers are an obvious one. If you are a hard core misogynist I'm completely uninterested in having a relationship with you. Gun owners are a pretty broad church and I need more of a case by case basis. There is a world of difference between the former marine who shoots competitively and the Sandy Hook denier who is arming himself for the race war.

I know you would like me to come up with some sweeping statement that draws a clear boundary but the issue has too many layers to separate out conveniently and listing particular groups individual would be long and necessarily incomplete.

I think the closet I can come is that if you are 'punching down' at others (ie anti-LGBTQ people), or peddling hate (I'm not interested hearing your defense of the ethnostate) I have to start asking serious questions as to whether I want anything to do with you.

Some of these groups include: Nazis, White Nationalists, misgoinsits, anti-choice people, fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, people who are cruel to children and animals, homophobes, transphobes, bigots of various stripes, people that support deporting children, MS-13, people who proudly proclaim they have never seen star wars and so on.

Interesting and tangentially related. I think its a bit extreme but I sympathize.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/dating-new-york-trump/

people who proudly proclaim they have never seen star wars and so on.

The literal worst.

.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
Even if the suicide bomber is alone in the ocean on an inflatable boat?

You didn't clarify if the suicide bomber owns the boat or the bomb. I know it seems obvious from context but apparently you would be wrong.

.

There is a clear difference between a suicide bomber and suicide by bomb. A person out in the middle of nowhere is by definition not a suicide bomber.

I know it's just a joke but I couldn't help myself. Cheers!

@IceHeart That is a fair point! I suppose he might be an existentialist suicide bomber attacking the absurdity of life. Or I suppose he could be a post modernist suicide bomber, that would be equally valid.