she shows me her butt, so that i can say ''it's 2024 we dont goon to still pictures anymore''. that's deep. toes in my mouth. toes with the french tips. white toes, baby blue toes. you name it.
17 hrs ago
AND I ALWAYS FIND YEAH I ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING WRONG!!! YOU BEEN PUTTING UP WITH MY SHIT JUST WAY TOO LONG!!
@Dynamo Frokane I mean there are some feminists that genuinely get upset over the idea of sex robots.
Well, of course. A lot of R&D has gone into designing the perfect sex tool for men - there are endless ways to improve them, make them more realistic, etc. The perfect tool for women has already been invented - it's a long stiff rod that can be inserted into the female genitals (or elsewhere). Little else can be done to it - yes, the material can be enhanced, the inclusion of a battery and vibrations can make it better.
Beyond that? Why invent a whole sex bot to look at when all you truly desire can be substituted by a stick (if you are brave enough).
I'd be jealous too, to see that men are receiving such amazing funding for amazing sex bot research.
It doesn't necessarily help in this age of, "complementing a girl could be sexual harassment" era either.
Maybe this is an issue with who brings the message and how one brings the message but I've never seen anyone get offended at a compliment.
And I'm sure the lie of every 4 of 3 woman getting raped (on purpose before you even ask) probably aren't giving them much confidence either. (also the '0' score doesn't show that there's many with the same mindset. So I think the coast is clear.)
We've achieved a lot of progress, I think! Used to be women were property, now they actually have rights and can report involuntary copulation! Wow, what a society we've built.
@Odin I disagree, as not all theologies run contrary to logic. If one's beliefs can't withstand rigorous analysis, then they're as worth keeping as the belief that a rabbit goes around hiding hollow eggs covered in paint once every year.
Then one can find fault in any and all religion. Thankfully the statement that a religion must be able to withstand rigorous analysis to be worth anything is an opinion and not a fact.
Omnipotence is the Judeo-Christian God's "Fuck You" Card to literally every criticism, which is ridiculous when you take a very hard look at it.
It's only a 'fuck you' card when you try your hardest to beat him. It's just something that 'is.' It's for that reason that analyzing theology as if it were a science can only ever backfire. It's not a science. It will never be a science. It's not something that deals in cold, hard, mathematical truths. It's not something meant to be analyzed in the same way we analyze other sciences.
It's not ridiculous at all - but if you are fundamentally against it, then it might seem ridiculous. For a believer it's just a fact.
@Odin I'd rather let you read what's been written, instead of repeat myself.
So you want me to read a wall of text, w o w.
I read your link from the Vatican site, and it doesn't counter what I've said. Rather, it basically says that God gave humanity free will, and that we're responsible for our actions. Not a peep about how the environment we're brought into was predetermined by God, which is convenient for them to ignore.
I don't really see how our environment would change free will as a concept. It might influence it, but a lot of things influence free will. Without environment, free will just turns into biology - because if there is no environmental stimulation in our free will, then it is pure instincts.
How nice of you to grasp onto the "but omnipotence!" answer. I was waiting for someone to do that. How does an omnipotent being circumvent the predicament I've described? If you think that answer is actually valid, can you also explain how an omnipotent being can make the value of any given number not be equal to itself?
I don't understand. I don't really see a predicament described anywhere. If this:
If I created you and your environment, all while knowing everything you will do in advance, how can you have the ability to freely make your own decisions?
is the predicament then the answer is simple. He's omnipotent therefore capable of knowing all the options available to you - therefore, his plans can account for infinite numbers of decisions. That he knows them does not change the fact that there are infinite numbers of options available to you. He just knows all the options.
And he is God. Simple 'tricks' with numbers don't really affect him. Unless you know him personally, how do you know he can't do what you said (I honestly don't even understand what you mean. 5=5? That's a truth. Don't need to make anything happen)?
@Odin If you read this post, and all the posts I've made since then, I'm sure you'll find the answer to your question.
Oh, so you present me with an answer that amounts to 'read everything' while also asking for someone not to post a wall of text. You're a funny guy.
But the bible itself states we have free will. Mr. Adler dictates this quite clearly. Even more so, theologians agree that God creates a plan for everyone (and as such, is omniscient) but includes in this the ability to respond to his grace in a free manner. Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 600. Here you can read some more on interpretations of Gods view on free will.
So, if God is omnipotent, then it is within his abilities to create a laid out plan for everything and everyone whilst still including the free will element. It seems almost any 'problem' with religion can be explained away by saying he is omnipotent - it means he can do anything and we cannot understand how or why because we are not God.
I do not understand your sentence here, @catchamber. "If we have free will, the Judeo-Christian God isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of everything, because those two conditions are mutually exclusive."
Which two criteria are mutually exclusive? Free will and omnipotence, free will and omniscience or free will and being the creator of everything? I think regardless of the answer I'll have some other idea about that, but I should clarify first.
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. :)
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.
boring game with limited gameplay and a shitty dlc policy that milks people for literally hundreds of dollars for a single game
of course, i bought it, like i bought most other paradox games, but stellaris is the game that made me realize just how terrible paradox' dlc policy is and how much they milk players for money. if stellaris dlc are anything to go by so far we might have a 'complete' playable game that doesn't die mid-game because of lack of content around 2035.
[center][color=gray][b]Just an Aragorn looking for his Arwen[/b][/color][/center]
[center][img]https://i.imgur.com/FrPe6BA.jpeg[/img] [img]https://i.imgur.com/ugdwUng.jpeg[/img][/center]
<div style="white-space:pre-wrap;"><div class="bb-center"><font color="gray"><span class="bb-b">Just an Aragorn looking for his Arwen</span></font></div><br><br><div class="bb-center"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/FrPe6BA.jpeg" /> <img src="https://i.imgur.com/ugdwUng.jpeg" /></div></div>
Member
Vampiretwilight
Snowdrops
LimeTime966
Chev
Crimson Flame
Tlaloc
Lexisheeps
Crawkid
Kaithe Dame
