1x Laugh
1 Guest
viewing this page
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
But don't you know that praying for hurricane victims actually prevents future hurricanes? Thoughts and prayers is the most powerful thing in the world. Not donating money, or time, or any other form of actual aid.
Thoughts and prayers are more powerful than you think. That said, I think most people realize that a large majority of people who give their money, time, and medical aid are Christians and other religious folk who believe it is their duty to help out those in need. Many of the largest charities that do good work around the world were started by religious groups and a lot of those types still give to charities, help out in the community, etc.
Well just going to say also I'm a Sola Scriptura[Bible Only] type of person so even if @Andreyich doesn't consider me a Christian I certainly do, though I consider myself a follow of Christ first and foremost before any such grouping.
Well since I wanted to get in something more political now here we have an unashamed defending of Antifa by non-other than the good old Huffpost. Pretty much they seem to be trying to sneak in ANTIFA with all the various anti-fascists groups in order to defend their violent tendencies. Real classy.
Dion THE ONE WHO IS CHEAP HACK ® / THE SHIT, A FART.
Member
Seen
6 days ago
<Snipped quote by Odin>
There's some good suicide? How exactly does one define that? It's literally dying from lack of any hope. <.< Spin that into a positive. Because everything you said, didn't make that case. I already made things debunking those ideas presented. So I won't repeat myself.In medicine, we talk much these days about a “good death,” not necessarily one that is completely free of suffering, but a dying process in which we are attendant to pain and symptom management, optimize clear decision making, and affirm the whole person in as dignified a manner as possible. Importantly, this can often be effectively accomplished through incorporation of palliative care services. Palliative care is a healing act adjusted to the good possible even in the face of the realities of an incurable illness. Cure may be futile but care is never futile (Pellegrino 2001). With appropriate utilization of palliative care, far fewer patients would be driven by fear to request that physicians actively end their lives via PAS/E.
Proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia posit the scenario of uncontrollable pain as a straw man for advancing their cause. Such proponents apparently view death as the ultimate analgesic. In fact, in medical practice today, pain relief is almost always possible given modern therapeutics in analgesia and the medical specialty of pain management. Since pain can be alleviated, there is no basis to assert a need for PAS because of intractable pain. This may explain in part why many requests for PAS are no longer related to or initiated because of intolerable pain, but because of fear of such intolerable pain. Further, closely related to a patient's fear of intolerable pain, and sometimes associated with a patient's fear of being abandoned (Coyle 2004), is a patient's request for PAS because of not wanting to burden others. This too poses a curious contradiction, for on the one hand there is not wanting to be a burden on a loved one, and on the other hand a fear of being alone and abandoned. Such a contradiction, once considered and coupled with the fact that pain can be addressed successfully through optimal palliative care implementation, enhances the power of this argument against PAS/E.
The Oregon law was enacted on the basis of intolerable pain — no one should be forced to endure pain that is uncontrollable and unendurable. Most of us can sympathize with that, but the law is not restricted to pain, and it is not pain that is the top reason people choose physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. The state's “Death with Dignity Act Annual Report” for 2014 shows that the top reason is “losing autonomy” (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5). Concern about pain was not even the second or third reason: “Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” and “Loss of dignity.” It was ranked sixth out of seven, above only financial concerns, and included not only “inadequate pain control,” but also “concern about it.” These patients were not necessarily in uncontrollable pain themselves, however they were concerned about it (as are we all). But even that concern did not rank high on their list of reasons that they wanted to commit suicide. Even if the line drawn is unbearable pain, how can that be restricted to only physical pain? Who can judge that mental anguish is not unbearable pain? Or that economic distress (or anything else that causes anguish) is not unbearable pain?
I feel like you attempted to put in a contrary opinion, but failed to make a comprehensible case. What you MEANT was, "claiming all suicide isn't viable (meaning something that wouldn't necessarily be a pleasant or good choice, but something that solves a problem.) insert thing here" That's still wrong, as I pointed out. Unless like Penny, you love the idea of rising suicide rates among demographics.
NIVEA. Niet invullen voor een ander. That's not what I meant at all. I would've gone into depth about why your analysis (is it yours or did you just copy paste stuff?) on Dutch euthanasia laws was inherently flawed because you don't understand how it actually works but just parrot whatever you read without a second thought or counter-hearing.
My late grandfather passed a year ago of Alzheimers. The suffering he went through was not physical - no amount of pain relief medication would've helped him or us. The way he was living was not human-worthy. It sounds morbid but if I had been asked whether we should euthanize him, my answer would've been yes. But that's not how euthanasia works in the Netherlands (contrary to your/popular belief apparently). He himself and only he himself can give the okay to euthanize, and even then it's such a long process that the chance of him being granted the request before his natural death at the hands of this disease would've very slim.
I am not bringing this forth as a personal anecdote - I am using it to show you that pain is not always fixed by pumping more drugs into somebodies body. Something you do not seem to comprehend on a human level also is that when you are in a hospital 24/7, being pumped full of drugs just to perform pain management, you are already in the last stages of your life. Doctors don't move towards pain management at such a level if they haven't already done everything they can for you.
But, anyway, getting back to it - you lack the emotional understanding to comprehend what drives people towards these sorts of choices. You sound very ignorant when you say these things without consideration for why these people want to do things like this. You say that people don't even consider 'pain' to be a top priority. Okay, so? So fucking what? If I lost autonomy over my own life I'd probably wanna end it too. I'm sorry, I just don't really feel like sitting in a home for older people for the rest of my life waiting for it all to end. If I lose the ability to do what makes my life enjoyable, I'd probably want my life to end. There is so little to live for at that point.
You imposing the idea that pain is the only reason to euthanize is not only ignorant, your attempt to fall back on that same argument isn't really truthful too. If I had a disease that was incurable and made my life into 'stare at a wall simulator 2k17' I'd end it. With or without doctors' help, but preferably with so I can at least die with dignity. And these diseases exist.
Terror attack at the Port Authority in NYC. Early reporting says the fucker did it wrong and injured himself too much to set off a suicide vest, got taken alive; two hurt, including the """"""suspect""""".
edit: not a serious injury to the bystander. Nice bomb, loser.
edit: not a serious injury to the bystander. Nice bomb, loser.
Mao Mao Sheriff of Pure Hearts (They/Them)
Member
Seen
0-24 hrs ago
Terror attack at the Port Authority in NYC. Early reporting says the fucker did it wrong and injured himself too much to set off a suicide vest, got taken alive; two hurt, including the """"""suspect""""".
Thoughts and prayer for those hurt in the terror attack.
The Harbinger of Ferocity
Member
Seen
3 yrs ago
People claim god is righteous and omnipotent. I guess I'm a fucking idiot because my definition of what's right and wrong goes against what's preached all the time: "It's all part of his plan, trust in him and he won't fail you," etc. I'm not okay with these things happening, even though people pray against it. But somehow, Suzie prayed hard enough and x amount of times so she could get an "A" instead of a "B" on her final, and it happened. But fuck the millions of others suffering, right?
I'm not here to change anyone's mind, just here to show why I think such delusion is bullshit.
Also, Bob could do all those things and more, but the second he makes that prayer, he's golden. No hell for him.
This is a non-argument because you openly admit this goes against the general philosophy of "It's all part of his plan, trust in him and he won't fail you.", whatever you as a mere person believe to be right or just pales utterly in comparison to that plan. That goes hand in hand with the other idea that the plan itself is beyond any measure of human comprehension or understanding. Of course you at your level may not be approving, but the greater scheme needed it to transpire for some other working component to succeed. This is not some closely kept secret of the belief system in question, which is why I call it a non-argument.
As for "praying hard enough" and "enough times", the general idea is that it has nothing to do with how hard you pray or the amount of times - although this varies with the different forms of Christianity - and has significantly more to do with the idea that without God man can truly accomplish nothing of value by himself. Suzie's request might have fulfilled some specific component of the greater plan, that she could have always had it if she so much as thought to ask for it because it was already in alignment with the will; one way or another she was going to take the test and pass in this example, but because she sought out that trust and looking to God she did better. This stems off into your other commentary about suffering people, where any number of factors - just as with Suzie in the earlier example - could be.
Why are people allowed to suffer in this context? For one, bringing it up you likely know the phrase that goes something along the lines of "It was never promised to be easy." and or that "There will always be suffering on Earth.", et cetera, et cetera. Not a sufficient answer, that I can recognize, but again this is not some unexplained concept in the philosophy of the religion. There are a multitude of interlocking, interwoven reasons for this that are elaborated upon. Some to this day are adamant it is "Just because of sin.", but when you ask them if that is original sin or the sins of the father or individual troubles, so on and so forth, there is not going to be a clear answer there.
As for Bob, my point is going to be summarized with a "Yes, and?"
When you are speaking to this religion's doctrine, you are needing to understand it with the perspective of that mankind is not the arbiter of fates. God in such a case would be the one to determine if Bob truly was repentant or if he was attempting to skirt the consequences of his actions just because he was on his deathbed. You as a person cannot determine that either, no amount of effort could you put forward to do that. So again, another non-issue in the context of how the system operates.
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
9 hrs ago
<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>
NIVEA. Niet invullen voor een ander. That's not what I meant at all. I would've gone into depth about why your analysis (is it yours or did you just copy paste stuff?) on Dutch euthanasia laws was inherently flawed because you don't understand how it actually works but just parrot whatever you read without a second thought or counter-hearing.
My late grandfather passed a year ago of Alzheimers. The suffering he went through was not physical - no amount of pain relief medication would've helped him or us. The way he was living was not human-worthy. It sounds morbid but if I had been asked whether we should euthanize him, my answer would've been yes. But that's not how euthanasia works in the Netherlands (contrary to your/popular belief apparently). He himself and only he himself can give the okay to euthanize, and even then it's such a long process that the chance of him being granted the request before his natural death at the hands of this disease would've very slim.
I am not bringing this forth as a personal anecdote - I am using it to show you that pain is not always fixed by pumping more drugs into somebodies body. Something you do not seem to comprehend on a human level also is that when you are in a hospital 24/7, being pumped full of drugs just to perform pain management, you are already in the last stages of your life. Doctors don't move towards pain management at such a level if they haven't already done everything they can for you.
But, anyway, getting back to it - you lack the emotional understanding to comprehend what drives people towards these sorts of choices. You sound very ignorant when you say these things without consideration for why these people want to do things like this. You say that people don't even consider 'pain' to be a top priority. Okay, so? So fucking what? If I lost autonomy over my own life I'd probably wanna end it too. I'm sorry, I just don't really feel like sitting in a home for older people for the rest of my life waiting for it all to end. If I lose the ability to do what makes my life enjoyable, I'd probably want my life to end. There is so little to live for at that point.
You imposing the idea that pain is the only reason to euthanize is not only ignorant, your attempt to fall back on that same argument isn't really truthful too. If I had a disease that was incurable and made my life into 'stare at a wall simulator 2k17' I'd end it. With or without doctors' help, but preferably with so I can at least die with dignity. And these diseases exist.
I feel like almost all of that, was saying the exact same thing. But the thing in bold, is what I'll focus on. You may not be trying to just use a personal story to point out sheer lack of evidence on why all the failed suicides is worth the 300 billion dollars in cost and all the negative ramifications of assisted suicide and what it can lead to. All you said, was personal, emotional and nothing factual.
I've already pointed out multiple times, I've been suicidal before, so it's just outright disingenuous to say I don't know what it feels like to feel that way. Also the way YOU describe your scenario it sounds like you would push him into suicide with how your talking about it. "The way he was living was not human-worthy" what makes you or anyone decide that? Because that gets into slippery slope argument that leads people to killing people that are disabled. The "thing I parroted" was an argument done by someone who knows what they're talking about and just went through why "dying with dignity" isn't a viable argument. I wasn't imposing that pain was the reason to offing oneself, but you seemed to be.
"The state's “Death with Dignity Act Annual Report” for 2014 shows that the top reason is “losing autonomy” (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5). Concern about pain was not even the second or third reason: “Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” and “Loss of dignity.” It was ranked sixth out of seven, above only financial concerns, and included not only “inadequate pain control,” but also “concern about it.” These patients were not necessarily in uncontrollable pain themselves, however they were concerned about it (as are we all). But even that concern did not rank high on their list of reasons that they wanted to commit suicide. Even if the line drawn is unbearable pain, how can that be restricted to only physical pain? Who can judge that mental anguish is not unbearable pain? Or that economic distress (or anything else that causes anguish) is not unbearable pain?"
The idea that making assisted suicide legal, we somehow only be restricted to "unbearable pain" cases, is naive at best and delusional at worst. You want to make that legal? You're going to have to deal with the oncoming slippery slope that becomes "anyone who pays" maybe even "anyone over 18, because free care." maybe children or teenagers with disabilities.
Since I'll never get you to admit, your idea comes from emotion and nothing more. Can I at least grasp what type of suicide is "not bad" to you? You want suicide bombers to have a right to do it? People who jump of bridges and make their deaths public? Just assisted suicide? All suicide should be legalized and judged since all of it should be treated with the same? My point is, you want assisted suicide? You get the transgender communities suicide rate to maybe go up to well over 50%. You get people arguing in favor of killing people with down syndrome, or autism. You get people that die from diseases they were only told they have. Because you're arguing not for defending those that take their own lifes, but that all people should have a right to commit suicide. (and I assume that's what you want, since you're pro-abortion and correctly pointed out this the same, "this is inconvenient for me" so I have the right to eliminate the problem issue.)
I am a physician. Part of my job is to help people die in comfort and with dignity. But I do not want to help you, or your daughter, or your uncle commit suicide. You should not want me to. I urge you to oppose physician-assisted suicide: it represents bad ethical reasoning, bad medicine, and bad policy. I am going to concentrate on the first of these lines of argument. Ilora will take up the latter two.
We strongly support the right of patients to refuse treatments and believe physicians have a duty to treat pain and other symptoms, even at the risk of hastening death. But empowering physicians to assist patients with suicide is quite another matter—striking at the heart not just of medical ethics, but at the core of ethics itself. That is because the very idea of interpersonal ethics depends upon our mutual recognition of each other's equal independent worth, the value we have simply because we are human. Some would have you believe that morality depends upon equal interests (usually defined by our preferences) and advance utilitarian arguments based on that assumption.4
But which is morally more important, people or their interests? As Aristotle observed, small errors at the beginning of an argument lead to large errors at the end.5 If interests take precedence over people, then assisting the suicide of a patient who has lost interest in living certainly is morally praiseworthy. But it also follows that active euthanasia ought to be permitted. It also follows that the severely demented can be euthanized once they no longer have interests. They can also freely be experimented upon as excellent human “models” for research. It also follows that infanticide ought to be permitted for infants with congenital illness.
Many would see these conclusions as frightful, but this is not just a slippery slope. They all follow logically from arguing for assisted suicide on the basis of maximizing personal interests. So if you do not believe in euthanasia for severely disabled children or the demented, you might want to re-think your support for assisted suicide. At least if you want to be consistent.
People often argue that they need assisted suicide to preserve their dignity, but that word has at least two senses. Proponents use the word in an attributed sense to denote the value others confer on them or the value they confer on themselves. But there is a deeper, intrinsic sense of dignity.
Human dignity ultimately rests not on a person's interests, but on the value of the person whose interests they are; and the value of the person is infinite. I do not need to ask you what your preferences are to know that you have incalculable worth, simply because you are human. Martin Luther King said that he learned this from his grandmother who told him, “Martin, don't let anybody ever tell you you're not a Somebody” (Baker-Fletcher 1993, 23). This some-bodiness, this intrinsic worth or dignity, was at the heart of the civil rights movement.
It does not matter what a person looks like, how productive the person might be, how others view that person, or even how that person may have come to view herself. What matters is that everybody, black or white, healthy or sick, is a somebody. Assisted suicide and euthanasia require us to accept that it is morally permissible to act with the specific intention-in-acting of making a somebody into a nobody, i.e., to make them dead.
Intentions, not just outcomes, matter in ethics. Intending that a somebody be turned into a nobody violates the fundamental basis of all of interpersonal ethics—the intrinsic dignity of the human.
Our society worships independence, youth, and beauty. Yet we know that illness and aging often bring dependence and disfigurement. The terminally ill, especially, need to be reminded of their value, their intrinsic dignity, at a time of fierce doubt. They need to know that their ultimate value does not depend upon their appearance, productivity, or independence.
You see, physician-assisted suicide flips the default switch. The question the terminally ill hear, even if never spoken, is, “You've become a burden to yourself and the rest of us. Why haven't you gotten rid of yourself yet?” A good utilitarian would think this a proper question—even a moral duty.
As a physician who cares for dying patients, however, I am more fearful of the burden this question imposes on the many who might otherwise choose to live, than the modest restriction imposed on a few, when physician-assisted suicide is illegal.
Assisted suicide should not be necessary. Pain and other symptoms can almost always be alleviated. As evidence, consider that pain or other symptoms rarely come up as reasons for assisted suicide. The top reasons are: fear of being a burden and wanting to be in control (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5).
You may ask, “Why shouldn't I have this option?” And yet we all realize that society puts many restrictions on individual liberty, and for a variety of reasons: to protect other parties, to promote the common good, and to safeguard the bases of law and morality. For example, we do not permit persons to drive when drunk, or to freely sell themselves into slavery.
Paradoxically, in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, patients turn the control over to physicians, who assess their eligibility and provide the means. Further, death obliterates all liberty. Therefore, saying that respect for liberty justifies the obliteration of liberty actually undermines the value we place on human freedom.
We strongly support the right of patients to refuse treatments and believe physicians have a duty to treat pain and other symptoms, even at the risk of hastening death. But empowering physicians to assist patients with suicide is quite another matter—striking at the heart not just of medical ethics, but at the core of ethics itself. That is because the very idea of interpersonal ethics depends upon our mutual recognition of each other's equal independent worth, the value we have simply because we are human. Some would have you believe that morality depends upon equal interests (usually defined by our preferences) and advance utilitarian arguments based on that assumption.4
But which is morally more important, people or their interests? As Aristotle observed, small errors at the beginning of an argument lead to large errors at the end.5 If interests take precedence over people, then assisting the suicide of a patient who has lost interest in living certainly is morally praiseworthy. But it also follows that active euthanasia ought to be permitted. It also follows that the severely demented can be euthanized once they no longer have interests. They can also freely be experimented upon as excellent human “models” for research. It also follows that infanticide ought to be permitted for infants with congenital illness.
Many would see these conclusions as frightful, but this is not just a slippery slope. They all follow logically from arguing for assisted suicide on the basis of maximizing personal interests. So if you do not believe in euthanasia for severely disabled children or the demented, you might want to re-think your support for assisted suicide. At least if you want to be consistent.
People often argue that they need assisted suicide to preserve their dignity, but that word has at least two senses. Proponents use the word in an attributed sense to denote the value others confer on them or the value they confer on themselves. But there is a deeper, intrinsic sense of dignity.
Human dignity ultimately rests not on a person's interests, but on the value of the person whose interests they are; and the value of the person is infinite. I do not need to ask you what your preferences are to know that you have incalculable worth, simply because you are human. Martin Luther King said that he learned this from his grandmother who told him, “Martin, don't let anybody ever tell you you're not a Somebody” (Baker-Fletcher 1993, 23). This some-bodiness, this intrinsic worth or dignity, was at the heart of the civil rights movement.
It does not matter what a person looks like, how productive the person might be, how others view that person, or even how that person may have come to view herself. What matters is that everybody, black or white, healthy or sick, is a somebody. Assisted suicide and euthanasia require us to accept that it is morally permissible to act with the specific intention-in-acting of making a somebody into a nobody, i.e., to make them dead.
Intentions, not just outcomes, matter in ethics. Intending that a somebody be turned into a nobody violates the fundamental basis of all of interpersonal ethics—the intrinsic dignity of the human.
Our society worships independence, youth, and beauty. Yet we know that illness and aging often bring dependence and disfigurement. The terminally ill, especially, need to be reminded of their value, their intrinsic dignity, at a time of fierce doubt. They need to know that their ultimate value does not depend upon their appearance, productivity, or independence.
You see, physician-assisted suicide flips the default switch. The question the terminally ill hear, even if never spoken, is, “You've become a burden to yourself and the rest of us. Why haven't you gotten rid of yourself yet?” A good utilitarian would think this a proper question—even a moral duty.
As a physician who cares for dying patients, however, I am more fearful of the burden this question imposes on the many who might otherwise choose to live, than the modest restriction imposed on a few, when physician-assisted suicide is illegal.
Assisted suicide should not be necessary. Pain and other symptoms can almost always be alleviated. As evidence, consider that pain or other symptoms rarely come up as reasons for assisted suicide. The top reasons are: fear of being a burden and wanting to be in control (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5).
You may ask, “Why shouldn't I have this option?” And yet we all realize that society puts many restrictions on individual liberty, and for a variety of reasons: to protect other parties, to promote the common good, and to safeguard the bases of law and morality. For example, we do not permit persons to drive when drunk, or to freely sell themselves into slavery.
Paradoxically, in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, patients turn the control over to physicians, who assess their eligibility and provide the means. Further, death obliterates all liberty. Therefore, saying that respect for liberty justifies the obliteration of liberty actually undermines the value we place on human freedom.
Terror attack at the Port Authority in NYC. Early reporting says the fucker did it wrong and injured himself too much to set off a suicide vest, got taken alive; two hurt, including the """"""suspect""""".
edit: not a serious injury to the bystander. Nice bomb, loser.
Worse thing is, I've actually seen an SVEST go off.
Seen the charge fail too, never turns out good for the bomber though...
VBIEDs are imo the worse, but SVESTs are horrifying.
Dion THE ONE WHO IS CHEAP HACK ® / THE SHIT, A FART.
Member
Seen
6 days ago
I feel like almost all of that, was saying the exact same thing. But the thing in bold, is what I'll focus on. You may not be trying to just use a personal story to point out sheer lack of evidence on why all the failed suicides is worth the 300 billion dollars in cost and all the negative ramifications of assisted suicide and what it can lead to. All you said, was personal, emotional and nothing factual.
Well, good news. Death is inherently emotional and personal and not at all financial which is the way you're putting it forth. This is how it works in a 2017 Western country with a social net that can afford to aid people even in things that aren't bare necessities purely because e can afford to, you know, give people a decent quality of life.
I've already pointed out multiple times, I've been suicidal before, so it's just outright disingenuous to say I don't know what it feels like to feel that way.
Have you been terminally ill? Have you been sick to the point of not being able to live your life anymore? If so, congratulations, you know how it feels. Having been suicidal has absolutely zero, nop, nihil, nothing to do with euthanasia.
Also the way YOU describe your scenario it sounds like you would push him into suicide with how your talking about it.Nivea. Please don't strawman me or put words in my mouth. I would never do that.
"The way he was living was not human-worthy" what makes you or anyone decide that?
My own opinion built by experience on the matter decides that. Visit a nursing home for people with illnesses like alzheimers sometimes. You'll see the light.
Because that gets into slippery slope argument that leads people to killing people that are disabled. The "thing I parroted" was an argument done by someone who knows what they're talking about and just went through why "dying with dignity" isn't a viable argument. I wasn't imposing that pain was the reason to offing oneself, but you seemed to be.
Well, for one, it only leads to that argument if you're an absolute moron. You liked using Dutch euthanasia laws as an example (the country where I am from) so I have to ask you when are the Dutch going to start killing disabled people? These laws were created on the request of people who suffer and want to kill themselves in a dignified way. They weren't made by doctors that want to kill people - nor an evil government that wants to kill all the undesirables. They were made by patients. They were fought heavily and even the doctors themselves didn't really agree to it. It took many years for the organization of patients to even get an agenda on the board of the politicians - who also fought against it because it's new and unheard of.
I think that the 'person who knows what they are talking about' is the patient themselves. Whether you agree with euthanasia or not is up to you - I certainly see why one would be against it but strongly disagree. But the fact of the matter is... if you don't allow people to do it legally under the watchful eye of someone that is trained for it, they will DIY it. And that has far more harmful effects on society.
"The state's “Death with Dignity Act Annual Report” for 2014 shows that the top reason is “losing autonomy” (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5). Concern about pain was not even the second or third reason: “Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” and “Loss of dignity.” It was ranked sixth out of seven, above only financial concerns, and included not only “inadequate pain control,” but also “concern about it.” These patients were not necessarily in uncontrollable pain themselves, however they were concerned about it (as are we all). But even that concern did not rank high on their list of reasons that they wanted to commit suicide. Even if the line drawn is unbearable pain, how can that be restricted to only physical pain? Who can judge that mental anguish is not unbearable pain? Or that economic distress (or anything else that causes anguish) is not unbearable pain?"
Anyone can judge that. It's a judgement call. It's not factual. The line has to be drawn by the government and the doctors. But, really, doctors don't deal in financial pains. I certainly think mental anguish can be considered unbearable pain. Losing autonomy, lessened ability to do activities... etc. and loss of dignity are all very very valid reasons to request euthanasia to me. And that's really what this all comes down to - it's how you feel about the situation. You can say 'hurr they don't care about the pain' and all I can say is, ok, so what? because I don't think pain is the sole criteria that we should be looking at. Whether a doctor agrees with that is not really my problem - most of all it's not my problem because for him there are plenty of doctors who do not share his views.
[quote=@SleepingSilence]The idea that making assisted suicide legal, we somehow only be restricted to "unbearable pain" cases, is naive at best and delusional at worst. You want to make that legal? You're going to have to deal with the oncoming slippery slope that becomes "anyone who pays" maybe even "anyone over 18, because free care." maybe children or teenagers with disabilities.[/qupte]
Again, we have made assisted suicide legal, we have restricted it to criteria that so far to my knowledge include only unbearable pain. Here you can read who can request euthanasia. I will summarize it for you since you obviously can't read Dutch (your summation of Dutch euthanasia would've been much more accurate if you did, and you'd certainly not have used it as a case study..). Here's the people who can request euthanasia.
- A minor aged 12 and up can request euthanasia. Up to 16 years it requires agreement from parents.
- 16, 17 year olds decide for themselves to request. The doctor is required to take parents into account, but agreement is not required.
- 18 and up can request it on their own.
- Demented people (people with a lessened capability mentally) can put in a euthanasia request.
- Euthanasia can not be requested by family members. They can however bring the patients will to light that states they want to be euthanized under x conditions.
- Foreign Dutch(wo)men can request euthanasia.
Notice how I boldened the word request a few times? That's because a request doesn't have to be granted. There are criteria that need to be legally qualified. Lawsuits have already been filled and won over these that have proven doctors were inadequately in control of the criteria. So, there are legal checks and balances.
De arts moet onder meer de medische geschiedenis van de patiënt kennen. Op basis daarvan moet hij tot de overtuiging kunnen komen dat de patiënt uitzichtloos lijdt. Ook moet de arts vaststellen dat de patiënt goed heeft nagedacht over het verzoek. En dat het lijden voor de patiënt ondraaglijk is.
"The doctor needs to know the medical history of the patient. On the basis of that he needs to be convinced that the patient will suffer without an end in sight. Also, the doctor must confirm that the patient has thought about the request very well. Finally, the suffering must be unbearable to the patient."
After the euthanasia has been performed, they must immediately make notice of this to the municipal coroner. Read more about that here.
There are legal punishments if a euthanasia isn't performed according to standard. For euthanasia this is maximum 12 years (about equal if not greater than manslaughter) and for assisted suicide it's a maximum of 3 years (long time for our justice system).
There are some things that don't fall under euthanasia law; a doctor ceasing a treatment on request of the patient, a doctor deciding not to perform a medically useless treatment, or a doctor that uses increasingly heavy medication to alleviate the pain with the trade off that the patient dies quicker. Read more about that here.
Since I'll never get you to admit, your idea comes from emotion and nothing more.
I don't really see your problem with emotional arguments. They're just as valid as yours, especially when discussing emotional matters such as suffering, death and euthanasia. These are not decisions people make lightly which you seem to think otherwise of. That is fine - you can pretend to be rational as long as you want and you will continue missing the core of the argument.
Can I at least grasp what type of suicide is "not bad" to you?
I have spoken about one type of suicide and one type only, so I don't think it is hard to imagine what suicide isn't bad to me. Perhaps you need additional help because you are special - it's euthanasia and assisted suicide. But, this is why...
You want suicide bombers to have a right to do it?
.. is such a dumb argument. I never said this. It's disgusting hyperbole. I'd almost think you were trying to make it look like I support suicide bombings, but I know you're not quite mentally capable of mental gymnastics like that, so I'll just assume you were trying to make some idiotic point here.
People who jump of bridges and make their deaths public?
They're dead. I don't think it matters whether they had a right to do it or not. But perhaps if euthanasia were legal and they could prove they were suffering, they wouldn't have to, yknow, jump off a bridge and make their deaths public DIY style. Maybe.
Just assisted suicide?
Yes. And euthanasia.
All suicide should be legalized and judged since all of it should be treated with the same?Preferably not, but that is your input. Also, treated with the same.. same what?
My point is, you want assisted suicide?I already have it.
You get the transgender communities suicide rate to maybe go up to well over 50%.I don't think we have. I don't think we will either. They don't meet the criteria. :)
You get people arguing in favor of killing people with down syndrome, or autism.We had those before euthanasialaws as well and they were just as retarded then as they were now. But there has not been an increase in the amount of these people we have.
You get people that die from diseases they were only told they have.No they won't because they don't meet the criteria.
Because you're arguing not for defending those that take their own lifes, but that all people should have a right to commit suicide.
I'm not. Nice strawman, loser.
(and I assume that's what you want, since you're pro-abortion and correctly pointed out this the same, "this is inconvenient for me" so I have the right to eliminate the problem issue.)
I am in fact pro-life but because I'm not a controlling asshole I vote pro-choice because it's not my kid and not my body. I don't see that has anything at all to do with euthanasia, but I'll play ball. I don't think it's inconvenient to me (what is precisely? Your point is entirely lost on me here. Maybe if you wrote more coherently....)
I am a physician. Part of my job is to help people die in comfort and with dignity. But I do not want to help you, or your daughter, or your uncle commit suicide. You should not want me to. I urge you to oppose physician-assisted suicide: it represents bad ethical reasoning, bad medicine, and bad policy. I am going to concentrate on the first of these lines of argument. Ilora will take up the latter two.
We strongly support the right of patients to refuse treatments and believe physicians have a duty to treat pain and other symptoms, even at the risk of hastening death. But empowering physicians to assist patients with suicide is quite another matter—striking at the heart not just of medical ethics, but at the core of ethics itself. That is because the very idea of interpersonal ethics depends upon our mutual recognition of each other's equal independent worth, the value we have simply because we are human. Some would have you believe that morality depends upon equal interests (usually defined by our preferences) and advance utilitarian arguments based on that assumption.4
But which is morally more important, people or their interests? As Aristotle observed, small errors at the beginning of an argument lead to large errors at the end.5 If interests take precedence over people, then assisting the suicide of a patient who has lost interest in living certainly is morally praiseworthy. But it also follows that active euthanasia ought to be permitted. It also follows that the severely demented can be euthanized once they no longer have interests. They can also freely be experimented upon as excellent human “models” for research. It also follows that infanticide ought to be permitted for infants with congenital illness.
Many would see these conclusions as frightful, but this is not just a slippery slope. They all follow logically from arguing for assisted suicide on the basis of maximizing personal interests. So if you do not believe in euthanasia for severely disabled children or the demented, you might want to re-think your support for assisted suicide. At least if you want to be consistent.
People often argue that they need assisted suicide to preserve their dignity, but that word has at least two senses. Proponents use the word in an attributed sense to denote the value others confer on them or the value they confer on themselves. But there is a deeper, intrinsic sense of dignity.
Human dignity ultimately rests not on a person's interests, but on the value of the person whose interests they are; and the value of the person is infinite. I do not need to ask you what your preferences are to know that you have incalculable worth, simply because you are human. Martin Luther King said that he learned this from his grandmother who told him, “Martin, don't let anybody ever tell you you're not a Somebody” (Baker-Fletcher 1993, 23). This some-bodiness, this intrinsic worth or dignity, was at the heart of the civil rights movement.
It does not matter what a person looks like, how productive the person might be, how others view that person, or even how that person may have come to view herself. What matters is that everybody, black or white, healthy or sick, is a somebody. Assisted suicide and euthanasia require us to accept that it is morally permissible to act with the specific intention-in-acting of making a somebody into a nobody, i.e., to make them dead.
Intentions, not just outcomes, matter in ethics. Intending that a somebody be turned into a nobody violates the fundamental basis of all of interpersonal ethics—the intrinsic dignity of the human.
Our society worships independence, youth, and beauty. Yet we know that illness and aging often bring dependence and disfigurement. The terminally ill, especially, need to be reminded of their value, their intrinsic dignity, at a time of fierce doubt. They need to know that their ultimate value does not depend upon their appearance, productivity, or independence.
You see, physician-assisted suicide flips the default switch. The question the terminally ill hear, even if never spoken, is, “You've become a burden to yourself and the rest of us. Why haven't you gotten rid of yourself yet?” A good utilitarian would think this a proper question—even a moral duty.
As a physician who cares for dying patients, however, I am more fearful of the burden this question imposes on the many who might otherwise choose to live, than the modest restriction imposed on a few, when physician-assisted suicide is illegal.
Assisted suicide should not be necessary. Pain and other symptoms can almost always be alleviated. As evidence, consider that pain or other symptoms rarely come up as reasons for assisted suicide. The top reasons are: fear of being a burden and wanting to be in control (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5).
You may ask, “Why shouldn't I have this option?” And yet we all realize that society puts many restrictions on individual liberty, and for a variety of reasons: to protect other parties, to promote the common good, and to safeguard the bases of law and morality. For example, we do not permit persons to drive when drunk, or to freely sell themselves into slavery.
Paradoxically, in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, patients turn the control over to physicians, who assess their eligibility and provide the means. Further, death obliterates all liberty. Therefore, saying that respect for liberty justifies the obliteration of liberty actually undermines the value we place on human freedom.
Okay, someone disagrees with me. No harm no foul. He's free to think that. Like I said, for him there are plenty who don't feel this way. :)
SleepingSilence OC, Plz No Stealz.
Member
Seen
9 hrs ago
@Odin Since I saw a "loser" in there. (and Jesus everything else under the sun, now that I've read through it.) I've honestly never even seen children call each other "loser". While we're getting off into the weeds. May I point out that you've given me vague nonsense about my writing being hard to digest. Without giving any examples. Yet, you've already proven you're not writing coherently to make a case for your own arguments.
Why did you separate quotes that many times? When arguing, when you weren't concise and it wasn't remotely necessary and just makes it harder to read? (Rather unpleasant actually.) You can't talk about my writing, when you admit that you didn't understand my questions and your own writing is vitriolic and horribly unfocused.
I did my best to limit all the clutter, but you clearly can't talk to people without being disrespectful. So, I'll leave this as my last post...
I've already shown that you're incorrect. If death didn't cost anyone any money, which is literally what you're saying. The funeral business would not exist. Let alone the whole hundred billion dollars of just dealing with suicide attempts alone. That's money and productivity being wasted on something that isn't necessary.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-au…
Those statement in bold, among many other things you said are contradictory. You can't recognize a gray area, if you don't differentiate what's acceptable and what's not. And demonize those who have that opinion as ignorant and stupid.
So despite all this talk about being a moron. You're tactically admitting that I'm correct by implying all suicide cannot be judged by anyone and is always a valid option if the person thinks so. (at least when we're talking about assisted suicide.) You haven't given me anything else. People aren't smart and some people are mentally ill and literally don't know what they're talking about. If someone is given a false diagnoses and gets depressed and kills themselves. Your argument is in favor of that happening, if no one can judge people who wish to kill themselves. (I've been talking about america law system and us enabling suicide, this whole time, by the by. Not like all my posts about it pointing that out matter...)
As for all this dutch stuff, you're making arguments I'm not even talking about or discussing. I don't want assisted suicide here in america or to legalize suicide here. But since you bring it up, is this really what you want? Because the dutch have an all time high suicide rate...is that something you're fine with? (Rhetorical question, not assuming or straw-manning anything. And I never did.)
nltimes.nl/2016/06/30/number-suicides…
Last year a massive 1,871 people committed suicide in the Netherlands, the highest number in the country's history, Statistics Netherlands announced on Thursday. That amounts to an average of five suicides a day in 2015.
theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/13/net…
"Allow dying for people's whose life is complete?" What the fuck? And hence, the slippery slope argument expands. Which is precisely why I'm against this. And I don't even have to call you stupid/special a dozen times in order to point out why. Because my argument stands on reason. (Also you keep bringing up that doctors don't like cost money or struggle with money...again couldn't be further from the truth.) Also I don't want to be like the dutch...
news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-net…
You never once stated before that you only just wanted assisted suicide. This is the first time, and it's also not a straw-man to ask, because you were previously vague in your statements and I just got through several people debating that. But now I get your point, you are simply defending the laws in the Netherlands you already have as viable and perfect without needs to make changes. Fine. Continue to eventually going down this path...
huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/nathan-…
medicaldaily.com/assisted-suicide-tou…
For anyone that cares to read, there's a lot more I didn't put in along with all my other links.
If you felt that I made any moral judgement on you for your opinion on assisted suicide. Your vagueness didn't help in that matter. But I apologize, and clarify. You aren't morally bankrupt if you happen to feel that certain way.
But with how you spoke to me, can you tell why I don't remotely take your personal judgement on my character seriously or treat it with a bit of respect? You clearly never had good intentions and can't express yourself without ad-hominems. So why should I respect or consider your opinion of me or my writing?
All that shit you flung at me, but where did I do the same? (period, let alone in this conversation.) If you want to fight the enemy, you first need a reason for that enemy to exist. And if it's "disagreeing" with you. You can't pretend you allow others to disagree with you. I know you don't have an answer, to be fair, you don't need one either, but I won't treat you politely in future, if you won't grant me the same common curiosity.
Why did you separate quotes that many times? When arguing, when you weren't concise and it wasn't remotely necessary and just makes it harder to read? (Rather unpleasant actually.) You can't talk about my writing, when you admit that you didn't understand my questions and your own writing is vitriolic and horribly unfocused.
I did my best to limit all the clutter, but you clearly can't talk to people without being disrespectful. So, I'll leave this as my last post...
Well, good news. Death is inherently emotional and personal and not at all financial which is the way you're putting it forth
I've already shown that you're incorrect. If death didn't cost anyone any money, which is literally what you're saying. The funeral business would not exist. Let alone the whole hundred billion dollars of just dealing with suicide attempts alone. That's money and productivity being wasted on something that isn't necessary.
Have you been terminally ill? ? If so, congratulations, you know how it feels.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-au…
I think that the 'person who knows what they are talking about' is the patient themselves. Whether you agree with euthanasia or not is up to you - I certainly see why one would be against it but strongly disagree.
Claiming all suicide is bad is just willfully ignorant.
Those statement in bold, among many other things you said are contradictory. You can't recognize a gray area, if you don't differentiate what's acceptable and what's not. And demonize those who have that opinion as ignorant and stupid.
So despite all this talk about being a moron. You're tactically admitting that I'm correct by implying all suicide cannot be judged by anyone and is always a valid option if the person thinks so. (at least when we're talking about assisted suicide.) You haven't given me anything else. People aren't smart and some people are mentally ill and literally don't know what they're talking about. If someone is given a false diagnoses and gets depressed and kills themselves. Your argument is in favor of that happening, if no one can judge people who wish to kill themselves. (I've been talking about america law system and us enabling suicide, this whole time, by the by. Not like all my posts about it pointing that out matter...)
As for all this dutch stuff, you're making arguments I'm not even talking about or discussing. I don't want assisted suicide here in america or to legalize suicide here. But since you bring it up, is this really what you want? Because the dutch have an all time high suicide rate...is that something you're fine with? (Rhetorical question, not assuming or straw-manning anything. And I never did.)
nltimes.nl/2016/06/30/number-suicides…
Last year a massive 1,871 people committed suicide in the Netherlands, the highest number in the country's history, Statistics Netherlands announced on Thursday. That amounts to an average of five suicides a day in 2015.
theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/13/net…
"Allow dying for people's whose life is complete?" What the fuck? And hence, the slippery slope argument expands. Which is precisely why I'm against this. And I don't even have to call you stupid/special a dozen times in order to point out why. Because my argument stands on reason. (Also you keep bringing up that doctors don't like cost money or struggle with money...again couldn't be further from the truth.) Also I don't want to be like the dutch...
news.vice.com/article/only-in-the-net…
You never once stated before that you only just wanted assisted suicide. This is the first time, and it's also not a straw-man to ask, because you were previously vague in your statements and I just got through several people debating that. But now I get your point, you are simply defending the laws in the Netherlands you already have as viable and perfect without needs to make changes. Fine. Continue to eventually going down this path...
huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/nathan-…
medicaldaily.com/assisted-suicide-tou…
Helping someone end their life is morally and ethically complicated, and that’s reflected in the vague language of many countries’ laws, which has in turn contributed to confusion and court cases like Purdy’s. Some countries, like the Netherlands, explicitly legalize physician-assisted suicide in situations where certain criteria are fulfilled. Likewise, doctors in five U.S. states are legally permitted to prescribe lethal doses of medicine for patients who intend to end their lives. Belgium, with the world’s most liberal suicide laws, even explicitly permits euthanasia by lethal injection.
The laws of other places are not nearly so clear. In 2015, German lawmakers passed a bill allowing assisted suicide for “altruistic motives” but banning the practice when conducted on a “business” basis. In Switzerland, inciting or assisting suicide for “selfish motives” has been illegal since 1942, implying that doing so is only punishable by law if the helper makes personal gains from the death.
Former German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries told the Associated Press that the German law “will open an era of great legal uncertainty,” and pointed out that it is unclear when a doctor behaves in “a business fashion.” If Switzerland’s vague law is any indication, however, right-to-die advocates will interpret the law in their favor. Since assisted suicide in non-selfish cases is not clearly regulated, the country has become a hot spot for the practice — not only among terminally ill Swiss citizens, but for anyone around the world hoping to end his life.
For most patients hoping to end their lives, traveling to a region that allows assisted suicide is much easier than changing the law at home. Thus suicide tourism was born.
The phenomenon has only grown and will continue to do so unabated, according to one team of Swiss researchers. They found that, between 2008 and 2012, 611 visitors came to Switzerland for the sole purpose of ending their lives. These people came from 31 different countries, but most hailed from Germany and the United Kingdom. The study authors write that “in the UK, at least, ‘going to Switzerland’ has become a euphemism for assisted suicide.”
Suicide tourism is not confined to Europe. The widely publicized case of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old with terminal brain cancer, brought assisted suicide into the public sphere in the United States, causing an eruption of debate over the right to die and the hassles the current patchwork of state laws produces. Maynard, a resident of California, was forced to uproot her family to go through with her plan to “die with dignity.”
“I met the criteria for death with dignity in Oregon, but establishing residence in the state to make use of the law required a monumental number of changes,” she wrote. “I had to find new physicians, establish residency in Portland, search for a new home, obtain a new driver’s license, change my voter registration, and enlist people to take care of our animals, and my husband, Dan, had to take a leave of absence from his job.”
Canada, for example, has introduced an assisted suicide law that specifically limits the practice to citizens and residents, excluding foreigners. It can be difficult to understand why a country would withhold medical care, but the tough ethical questions aimed at countries with liberal assisted suicide and euthanasia laws can be hard to handle.
Lawmakers must determine how severe a person’s condition must be before they can legally seek assisted suicide. Most associate the practice with terminal illness, but not all cases concern such an ailment. Comparing their findings to those in two earlier studies, the authors of the Swiss suicide tourism study said their research showed that doctors diagnosed an increasing proportion of neurological and rheumatic diseases among suicide tourists.
“This implies that non-fatal diseases are increasing among the suicide tourists and probably also among Swiss residents,” they wrote.
As assisted suicide becomes more common, an increasing number of cases will test the line between the humane and the unacceptable — a category that usually includes traditional, unassisted suicides. People are at a much higher risk for self-harm when suffering from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression, for example, and the latter commonly afflicts those with serious, chronic illnesses. In an editorial concerning physician-assisted suicide, Dr. Morton Tavel, a clinical professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Medicine, addressed the fine line doctors walk when navigating the law and individual cases.
“Although such laws are humane and sensible, they can be abused and result in wrongful deaths,” he wrote. “We physicians commonly encounter severely depressed patients without life-threatening physical maladies, who, on their own, might opt to commit suicide. … Obviously, in such cases a caregiver’s assistance in suicide would represent a serious disservice.”
The laws of other places are not nearly so clear. In 2015, German lawmakers passed a bill allowing assisted suicide for “altruistic motives” but banning the practice when conducted on a “business” basis. In Switzerland, inciting or assisting suicide for “selfish motives” has been illegal since 1942, implying that doing so is only punishable by law if the helper makes personal gains from the death.
Former German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries told the Associated Press that the German law “will open an era of great legal uncertainty,” and pointed out that it is unclear when a doctor behaves in “a business fashion.” If Switzerland’s vague law is any indication, however, right-to-die advocates will interpret the law in their favor. Since assisted suicide in non-selfish cases is not clearly regulated, the country has become a hot spot for the practice — not only among terminally ill Swiss citizens, but for anyone around the world hoping to end his life.
For most patients hoping to end their lives, traveling to a region that allows assisted suicide is much easier than changing the law at home. Thus suicide tourism was born.
The phenomenon has only grown and will continue to do so unabated, according to one team of Swiss researchers. They found that, between 2008 and 2012, 611 visitors came to Switzerland for the sole purpose of ending their lives. These people came from 31 different countries, but most hailed from Germany and the United Kingdom. The study authors write that “in the UK, at least, ‘going to Switzerland’ has become a euphemism for assisted suicide.”
Suicide tourism is not confined to Europe. The widely publicized case of Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old with terminal brain cancer, brought assisted suicide into the public sphere in the United States, causing an eruption of debate over the right to die and the hassles the current patchwork of state laws produces. Maynard, a resident of California, was forced to uproot her family to go through with her plan to “die with dignity.”
“I met the criteria for death with dignity in Oregon, but establishing residence in the state to make use of the law required a monumental number of changes,” she wrote. “I had to find new physicians, establish residency in Portland, search for a new home, obtain a new driver’s license, change my voter registration, and enlist people to take care of our animals, and my husband, Dan, had to take a leave of absence from his job.”
Canada, for example, has introduced an assisted suicide law that specifically limits the practice to citizens and residents, excluding foreigners. It can be difficult to understand why a country would withhold medical care, but the tough ethical questions aimed at countries with liberal assisted suicide and euthanasia laws can be hard to handle.
Lawmakers must determine how severe a person’s condition must be before they can legally seek assisted suicide. Most associate the practice with terminal illness, but not all cases concern such an ailment. Comparing their findings to those in two earlier studies, the authors of the Swiss suicide tourism study said their research showed that doctors diagnosed an increasing proportion of neurological and rheumatic diseases among suicide tourists.
“This implies that non-fatal diseases are increasing among the suicide tourists and probably also among Swiss residents,” they wrote.
As assisted suicide becomes more common, an increasing number of cases will test the line between the humane and the unacceptable — a category that usually includes traditional, unassisted suicides. People are at a much higher risk for self-harm when suffering from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression, for example, and the latter commonly afflicts those with serious, chronic illnesses. In an editorial concerning physician-assisted suicide, Dr. Morton Tavel, a clinical professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Medicine, addressed the fine line doctors walk when navigating the law and individual cases.
“Although such laws are humane and sensible, they can be abused and result in wrongful deaths,” he wrote. “We physicians commonly encounter severely depressed patients without life-threatening physical maladies, who, on their own, might opt to commit suicide. … Obviously, in such cases a caregiver’s assistance in suicide would represent a serious disservice.”
For anyone that cares to read, there's a lot more I didn't put in along with all my other links.
If you felt that I made any moral judgement on you for your opinion on assisted suicide. Your vagueness didn't help in that matter. But I apologize, and clarify. You aren't morally bankrupt if you happen to feel that certain way.
But with how you spoke to me, can you tell why I don't remotely take your personal judgement on my character seriously or treat it with a bit of respect? You clearly never had good intentions and can't express yourself without ad-hominems. So why should I respect or consider your opinion of me or my writing?
All that shit you flung at me, but where did I do the same? (period, let alone in this conversation.) If you want to fight the enemy, you first need a reason for that enemy to exist. And if it's "disagreeing" with you. You can't pretend you allow others to disagree with you. I know you don't have an answer, to be fair, you don't need one either, but I won't treat you politely in future, if you won't grant me the same common curiosity.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
Xandrya Lone Wolf
Member
Seen
14 hrs ago
@The Harbinger of Ferocity
I'm not saying I believe in this "greater plan" or whatever it may be because that's obviously contradictory as you pointed out and I wouldn't have made such statement, but that's what the religion claims. My problem is (and I attended a Christian church with my parents for ~15 years) that they preach god is righteous and omnipotent. Now, he can't be both with all the shit going on. I'm well aware that in our world, there are processes that need to take place in order to achieve a goal. But to god, that shouldn't be an issue. He shouldn't need to sacrifice the lives of innocent kids so I don't know, I can get to work on time. He's omnipotent, after all. He can literally blink his eyes and the universe can very well cease to exist. If that's still the case, then he isn't righteous, not by our definition. He isn't good, unlike it's preached to the public, and he's doing whatever the hell he wants, but not in our own interest. Not in the best interest of the same mankind which he sent his only son to die for. Kinda redundant, really.
As to Bob, well that's a damn tragedy. The parents of the victims will more than likely never find peace, but Bob, well at least he's getting to heaven. One more reason why if I believed any of it, I wouldn't want to go up there anyway.
I'm not saying I believe in this "greater plan" or whatever it may be because that's obviously contradictory as you pointed out and I wouldn't have made such statement, but that's what the religion claims. My problem is (and I attended a Christian church with my parents for ~15 years) that they preach god is righteous and omnipotent. Now, he can't be both with all the shit going on. I'm well aware that in our world, there are processes that need to take place in order to achieve a goal. But to god, that shouldn't be an issue. He shouldn't need to sacrifice the lives of innocent kids so I don't know, I can get to work on time. He's omnipotent, after all. He can literally blink his eyes and the universe can very well cease to exist. If that's still the case, then he isn't righteous, not by our definition. He isn't good, unlike it's preached to the public, and he's doing whatever the hell he wants, but not in our own interest. Not in the best interest of the same mankind which he sent his only son to die for. Kinda redundant, really.
As to Bob, well that's a damn tragedy. The parents of the victims will more than likely never find peace, but Bob, well at least he's getting to heaven. One more reason why if I believed any of it, I wouldn't want to go up there anyway.
The problem of evil is one of the oldest theological challenges. Basically all arguments on this point are explanations for why the world looks like there is no divine plan at all and people are just making it up as they go along. Weird.
<Snipped quote by mdk>
Worse thing is, I've actually seen an SVEST go off.
Seen the charge fail too, never turns out good for the bomber though...
VBIEDs are imo the worse, but SVESTs are horrifying.
The VBIEDs are (much) stronger, but the vests go anywhere. If he'd done it right, made it into the subway system or even just blown it properly, the effects underground (in a pressurized tin can) woulda been pretty nasty. Thank god he was retarded.
Whattaya think Mad Dog does to repay the attempt? THAT is something I wanna see. We got like fifteen more MOABs and they're not getting any younger.
POOHEAD189 The Abmin
Admin
Online
AlteredTundra
Member
Seen
5 hrs ago
Just think about it guys: Trump drinks diet coke. That stuff is known to be bad for your health. The aspartame specifically is said to be worse for you than if you drank regular soda.
POOHEAD189 The Abmin
Admin
Online
Just think about it guys: Trump drinks diet coke. That stuff is known to be bad for your health. The aspartame specifically is said to be worse for you than if you drank regular soda.
AlteredTundra
Member
Seen
5 hrs ago
@POOHEAD189 Yo man, go look it up. There are scientific facts and shit. Totally legit.
1 Guest
viewing this page
of
280
© 2007-2024