Page 33 of 40 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 392

Thread: The right to die?

  1. #321
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,338
    Amen (Given)
    1170
    Amen (Received)
    20408
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Dang, I passed bio - it was chem I flunked. Maybe I should have hung in there?

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

    I'm always still in trouble again

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

  2. #322
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    16,060
    Amen (Given)
    10796
    Amen (Received)
    5968
    Quote Originally Posted by Sea of red View Post
    I know you're not really reading my posts - it comes right through the pixels. Every time you reply back you show me that you're arguing at me instead of with me. You don't take time to think about what I've written, you just look for something you can distort in your favor, and then reload for the next reply. I've seen it thousands of times before and your posts drip with it.
    Funny, but no. I have misread you a few times - usually caught too late. But I do read it.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yes, I should have known better.

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

  3. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  4. #323
    tWebber Spartacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Broman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,996
    Amen (Given)
    264
    Amen (Received)
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Xena View Post
    Two LPCO conventions ago we had a right to die petitioner who rented a booth. I refused to sign her petition. I said no for many of the same reasons here ... and some not said here. I don't believe as a Christian in suicide being moral, and I think it can be abused. I then thought through the implications of freedom and rights and found neither were a justification for using the force of the state to codify into law.

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

  5. Amen Teallaura, Carrikature amen'd this post.
  6. #324
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    *snip*
    No I know what I meant. I meant disposal (which I was using in the sense of the right to do with as one sees fit as long as one doesn't infringe upon the rights of another person).

    I am not responding further, because maybe just a misreading, maybe just a personality conflict, but I found the way you spoke to Sea here incredibly high-handed and insulting and I'm not interested in that. Too much time wasted getting through the rhetoric.
    Last edited by Darth Xena; 11-01-2016 at 09:29 PM.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  7. #325
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Spartacus View Post
    How can there be a right to do what is never right to do?
    Because not everything that is immoral or "not right" should be illegal. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not moral - particularly when the morality here is a vertical morality primarily.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  8. Amen Carrikature amen'd this post.
  9. #326
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    "It is striking how much of the majorityís reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." -John Roberts in his dissent on Obergefell v. Hodges
    Precisely.

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


  10. #327
    tWebber Spartacus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Broman Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,996
    Amen (Given)
    264
    Amen (Received)
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Xena View Post
    Because not everything that is immoral or "not right" should be illegal. I have a right to do a lot of things that are not moral - particularly when the morality here is a vertical morality primarily.
    There are some immoral acts against which we cannot hope to consistently enforce laws, and so it is imprudent to try to enact or enforce such laws. However, that does not mean that people somehow have a right to do those things we cannot prohibit.

    Also, it seems to me that assisted suicide is an act against which we can reasonably expect to enforce laws.

  11. Amen Cerebrum123, Teallaura, Carrikature amen'd this post.
  12. #328
    tWebber Sea of red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,762
    Amen (Given)
    281
    Amen (Received)
    1003
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    Funny, but no. I have misread you a few times - usually caught too late. But I do read it.
    You seem to read it with very little charity and you constantly twist words to fit your particular meaning.

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

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

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

    Save somebody that wants your help.

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

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

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

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

  13. #329
    tWebber Sea of red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,762
    Amen (Given)
    281
    Amen (Received)
    1003
    Quote Originally Posted by Teallaura View Post
    No, no, no, and no.

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

  14. #330
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    51,126
    Amen (Given)
    5162
    Amen (Received)
    22727
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Xena View Post
    They could charge you if unsuccessful. Attempting a crime is a crime. But no, more likely they will make information on the exercise of your right unlawful and criminalize anyone who might assist you.



    Yes, if they are willing.



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

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •