Who exactly decides when someone can do more with their lives? And why does that person get to force their views about life on other people?
Well assuming they aren't a completely disabled vegetable, they have the literal capacity for a great deal of things, you don't need any emotion judgement for that. If you look at Stephen Hawking, a guy who's like 95% paralyzed, he's still a big name is theoretical physics. As I said before, there's no "real" obligation, it depends on the standard of society of you want to live in. If you want to live in a society where people honestly never give a crap about other people, then you're more than welcome to go back to the jungle or plains or some deserted island and live there, assuming it's not someone else's or the government's property.
I agree they are very different things. Now, convince me why I should care so much as to bar the market from facilitating whatever motivation one might have.
Because people's objective judgement's could be impaired by extreme pain or chemical imbalances such as depression. It's true for nearly any drug, but hospitals don't want to deal with defining who is actually ill and has impaired judgement and scenarios like "Why on Earth did you give my son those pills!!?? He was suppose to see a psychiatrist!! We were so close to figuring it out!! I'm suing you for everything you have!!!".
Is her son an adult?
Did her son know what the pills did?
Did her son make his own conscious choice?
Because "I need a car or I won't be able to get to work","I need a car so I can show off to girls", and "I need a car because I love the thrill of driving through stop signs" are very different things - but I don't care what, when, why, or how people want to buy cars. Let the market provide what people want it to provide for them.
If they cause harm to OTHERS with their purchases, then punish them, but if not...
So I could sell rotten meat to people, call it a special, and if they buy it, get sick and die, everything's their fault, there's no responsibility of the seller in any way shape or form.
This is a poorly twisted straw man version of what I said.
Did the butcher inform the consumer the meat was rotten before they purchased it? If not, then that's called FRAUD, and there is a punishment for the crime of fraud, and if that crime of fraud resulted in death, welcome to manslaughter and criminal negligence at best, and possibly felony murder in the first degree at worst.
If the butcher did inform the customer that the meat was rotten, was the customer an adult?
Did the customer make a conscious choice to buy it?
The only reason the market would sell it is to make money, not because it cares that people want to kill themselves. Why would you let something incapable of the most basic human capacities like a market or company hand out a drug that kills people almost instantly?
The market ALREADY sells, and doctors even prescribe plenty of drugs that can kill, cleaning chemicals, dangerous or deadly weapons, tools, toys, choking hazards, you name it.
Who is the market to say there isn't a better alternative?
I'm pretty sure the market is ALREADY offering alternatives. Or have you never seen a Pro-life billboard, or heard a drug rehab center commercial. I see and hear them every day.
Well it probably didn't say anything anyway because that's a human decision, not a market decision. Why don't we just let everyone buy weaponized pathogens, not necessarily for killing anyone, just to play around with?
A deadly pathogen can cause harm to OTHERS without human action.
A gun can't kill other people without someone pulling the trigger. It's an inanimate object. A Pathogen isn't a bullet, it's a living thing, capable of spreading multiplying and evolving on it's own, and once released doesn't have a "target".
Free market, no problem there. Why don't we just let people buy fluorosulfuric acid instead of water and call it "the most sour drink in the world"? It's a free-market, I should be able to, right?
Straw Man again.
If the seller doesn't inform the customer that it kills you when you drink it, then they are guilty of FRAUD. See above about what happens after that.
I'm not going to harm others by ingesting my own fluorosulfiric acid drink. As long as it makes money, it's completely ethical, right?
Are you an adult?
Did you make a conscious choice to drink your acid?
In the same way, you could market cyanide pills as "Want to end all your suffering and misery and never have to deal with pain again and possibly go to heaven? Well try out new strawberry flavored cyanide pill!".
Not the best slogan sorry, I'm sure we can do better than that.
I like: "If you absolutely, positively, need to die overnight, Cyanaid! Now in Strawberry and Tropical Punch!"
or "Tired of living? Try Cyanaid for quick relief."
Also, adding "heaven" is irresponsible of the advertiser. Heaven might be a lie, and therefore fraud.
It's more about a society trying to have the decency to care about the lives of others and uphold a better way of life than saying "hey let's do anything we feel like". Or, would you rather live in such a dump of a society that there's suicide booths on every block?
I'd rather live in a society that gives people a good reason to live, rather than just mandates that you must live.
This is a poorly twisted straw man version of what I said.
Did the butcher inform the consumer the meat was rotten before they purchased it? If not, then that's called FRAUD, and there is a punishment for the crime of fraud, and if that crime of fraud resulted in death, welcome to manslaughter and criminal negligence at best, and possibly felony murder in the first degree at worst.
Except it's not a strawman because you have no evidence whatsoever that people are happier or better off dead, marketing a cyanide pill as "relief" could just as easily be fraud. In fact what if they go to hell for committing suicide? Then they're even worse off.
The market ALREADY sells, and doctors even prescribe plenty of drugs that can kill, cleaning chemicals, dangerous or deadly weapons, tools, toys, choking hazards, you name it.
But not with the purpose of killing someone. If all those chemicals already exist, then what's your argument? You can just drink some bleach and get it over with.
Did you make a conscious choice to drink your acid?
I can't remember that well, I was drunk and depressed and I regret half the things I did at the bar last night, like apparently ordering fluorsoulfuric acid.
I'd rather live in a society that gives people a good reason to live, rather than just mandates that you must live.
Then welcome to society. The point isn't that your being forced to live, it's that society has decided that there is no consensus that people are better off dead, and so they have the decency to try and improve other's lives and say "wait, you can make it through this" rather than just throw those lives away.
Oh, so we shouldn't feel bad when someone dies or have the capacity to not kill each other, good to know.
...No, I'm actually saying the exact opposite. Evolution is a hugely inefficient model that relies on the vast majority of things dieing horrible painful deaths and results in things not built for a certain purpose but to be "good enough." Saying anything is good or reasonable because of evolution is naturalistic fallacy at its worst.
But that doesn't address the fact that there is no consensus that all suffering is bad.
There doesn't need to be a consensus. If someone believes suffering is a good thing, they can suffer all they want.
Well assuming they aren't a completely disabled vegetable, they have the literal capacity for a great deal of things, you don't need any emotion judgement for that. If you look at Stephen Hawking, a guy who's like 95% paralyzed, he's still a big name is theoretical physics. As I said before, there's no "real" obligation, it depends on the standard of society of you want to live in. If you want to live in a society where people honestly never give a crap about other people, then you're more than welcome to go back to the jungle or plains or some deserted island and live there, assuming it's not someone else's or the government's property.
You're missing the point. You are stating that a person's life is dependent on someone else's evaluation of their worth. If a person wants to die, and you step in and say "too bad, we as a society still have things we want to get out of you," you have given society ownership of the person. It can also lead to the opposite problem, where society decides "we aren't getting anything out of you, so you need to die."
And I don't like the mischaracterization of my opinion that I want to live in a society where "people honestly never give a crap about other people." I'm talking about respecting the wishes of other people and not enforcing your beliefs on them. You're talking about a society that says that what a person wants is so irrelevant as to give other people the right to decide who lives and who dies.
No, I'm actually saying the exact opposite. Evolution is a hugely inefficient model that relies on the vast majority of things dieing horrible painful deaths and results in things not built for a certain purpose but to be "good enough." Saying anything is good or reasonable because of evolution is naturalistic fallacy at its worst.
Ok, so if you said evolution is hugely inefficient, then having emotions and having the capacity to not kill each other is inefficient as those arose from evolution.
There doesn't need to be a consensus. If someone believes suffering is a good thing, they can suffer all they want.
Not if you want to live in what is called a "society", more specifically I suppose a democratic one, where every person has some part in the system that effects the lives of everyone.
And I don't like the mischaracterization of my opinion that I want to live in a society where "people honestly never give a crap about other people." I'm talking about respecting the wishes of other people and not enforcing your beliefs on them. You're talking about a society that says that what a person wants is so irrelevant as to give other people the right to decide who lives and who dies.
As I keep saying, you have no ultimate obligation, you "can" do any physical thing you are capable of at any moment. BUT, it's not about denying anyone rights, it's about the fact that we have no proof that people are better off dead, and so, as a society of sentient beings with the capacity to care about the lives and well-being of others with rules and laws, it is said that other alternative should be attempted to help yourself before conceding to death.
I'd like to see you attempt to say that in person, and see if you can manage to do it.
There is nothing I could say on this forum to prove I am precisely the kind of person who could say that to a grieving mother, except that I believe I am.
This is a poorly twisted straw man version of what I said.
Did the butcher inform the consumer the meat was rotten before they purchased it? If not, then that's called FRAUD, and there is a punishment for the crime of fraud, and if that crime of fraud resulted in death, welcome to manslaughter and criminal negligence at best, and possibly felony murder in the first degree at worst.
Except it's not a strawman because you have no evidence whatsoever that people are happier or better off dead, marketing a cyanide pill as "relief" could just as easily be fraud. In fact what if they go to hell for committing suicide? Then they're even worse off.
At NO time in this thread have I argued people are better off dead. I've only argued that if they don't want to be alive, they shouldn't have to be, and they shouldn't be forced by various laws to do something unnecessarily violent or ugly, or messy, in order to carry out their wishes.
Does everyone need to kill a cow themselves to get some hamburger? No. Someone will do it for you and put the meat in a nice neat package you can conveniently pick up at the store.
You're the one bringing up illness, drug use, depressions, etc.
I don't care if the person is super happy with no problems and no illnesses. If they feel like checking out early, so be it.
The market ALREADY sells, and doctors even prescribe plenty of drugs that can kill, cleaning chemicals, dangerous or deadly weapons, tools, toys, choking hazards, you name it.
But not with the purpose of killing someone. If all those chemicals already exist, then what's your argument? You can just drink some bleach and get it over with.
Sure, bleach is an option.
That's neither here nor there. I could maybe kill ducks with a throwing star, or a sling shot, or a stick of dynamite. Thankfully, someone makes a 28" barreled, 12 gauge, semi-automatic shotgun in woodland-camo, with a recoil damping stock, and TruGlo fatbead dual color fiber optic sights, making it so much easier and funner for me to fill my bag.
If the seller doesn't inform the customer that it kills you when you drink it, then they are guilty of FRAUD. See above about what happens after that.
See above for response.
What response? You didn't respond to anything the fact that if you sell tainted meat, or deadly chemicals, without informing your customers of the truth, it's fraud.
Did you make a conscious choice to drink your acid?
I can't remember that well, I was drunk and depressed and I regret half the things I did at the bar last night, like apparently ordering fluorsoulfuric acid.
Not my problem.
Drunk people get behind the wheel too. Unfortunately, they often harm OTHERS, and not just themselves.
We don't ban alcohol, or cars, or bars. We punish the misuse of those things.
I'd rather live in a society that gives people a good reason to live, rather than just mandates that you must live.
Then welcome to society. The point isn't that your being forced to live, it's that society has decided that there is no consensus that people are better off dead, and so they have the decency to try and improve other's lives and say "wait, you can make it through this" rather than just throw those lives away.
As Zaph said, there doesn't need to be a consensus.
I do not need to find a social consensus that states having ice cream is better than not having ice cream, for me to decide for myself whether or not I buy ice cream.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
If you don't think people are better off dead and there is still a way they can be helped, then you have no real reason to advocate euthanasia to them as a member of a society that claims to have the capacity to care about the lives as well being of others.
If you don't think people are better off dead and there is still a way they can be helped, then you have no real reason to advocate euthanasia to them as a member of a society that claims to have the capacity to care about the lives as well being of others.
You've missed the point entirely.
If you don't think people are better off dead and think there is a way they can be helped, then you have no real reason to advocate for their deaths.
Advocating for legal euthanasia is not advocating for people to die. It is advocating for people to be able to choose for themselves whether they die. The fundamental thing that a euthanasia advocate is arguing for is individual choice, not death.
If you don't think people are better off dead and there is still a way they can be helped, then you have no real reason to advocate euthanasia to them as a member of a society that claims to have the capacity to care about the lives as well being of others.
You've missed the point entirely.
If you don't think people are better off dead and think there is a way they can be helped, then you have no real reason to advocate for their deaths.
Advocating for legal euthanasia is not advocating for people to die. It is advocating for people to be able to choose for themselves whether they die. The fundamental thing that a euthanasia advocate is arguing for is individual choice, not death.
People interfere with the choices of other people all the time. Their arguement is "go kill yourself if you feel like it", and the other arguement that I happen to be siding with is "just stop and think it through. There's no garuntee you're better off dead and there's still a chance to help you". I did not miss the point, it is simply the case that the type of society that lives by the second arguement is by nature forfeiting the ability to let people choose to do it at any time they feel like it, at least within the parameters that it can be controlled, and I'm explaining why.
Some people might be better off dead, some people might not be. I'm not making that decision for them.
And some times the rest of society agrees. However, would you rather live in a society where people say "sure let him kill himself, I don't care, not my problem", or "just stop and think about it, there's other alternatives and I'm willing to help you"?
You can't really call it informed consent if the patient is in so much pain they want to die.
That's a bit circular.
Yeah, perhaps I typed out my response too quickly.
I actually believe there are cases where the use of euthanasia is acceptable, but I definitely think it needs to be reserved for the very extreme cases where there isn't any hope for recovery and palliative care isn't effective.
There has to be a clearly defined ethics team in place before such requests should be granted.
Ok, so if you said evolution is hugely inefficient, then having emotions and having the capacity to not kill each other is inefficient as those arose from evolution.
Let's not get all genetic fallacy here. How much I like something has nothing to do with its origins.
As I keep saying, you have no ultimate obligation, you "can" do any physical thing you are capable of at any moment. BUT, it's not about denying anyone rights, it's about the fact that we have no proof that people are better off dead, and so, as a society of sentient beings with the capacity to care about the lives and well-being of others with rules and laws, it is said that other alternative should be attempted to help yourself before conceding to death.
We do not need to prove that someone would be better off dead, if that is even a coherent statement. I think people would be better off not putting mayonnaise on their pastrami. I may be disgusted to live in a society that allows such a culinary disaster, but I don't get to mandate how a sandwich is made.
Let's not get all genetic fallacy here. How much I like something has nothing to do with its origins.
But the capacity for emotional desire did. Evolution itself is ugly, but the results are substantial. You would not have an emotional capacity without a mutation to form and regulate a certain chemical.
We do not need to prove that someone would be better off dead, if that is even a coherent statement. I think people would be better off not putting mayonnaise on their pastrami. I may be disgusted to live in a society that allows such a culinary disaster, but I don't get to mandate how a sandwich is made.
But part of living in a society is accepting that some things are mandated, that there are rules. If you honestly want to live in a society where people let other people die before attempting to help them, petition all for it and get it put to a vote, find a different country, or go live in the wild. Otherwise you can legally state that you don't want to be on life support if you are too injured or become dependent on it such that being taken off of it would kill you which coincides with Jay's compromise.
We do not need to prove that someone would be better off dead, if that is even a coherent statement. I think people would be better off not putting mayonnaise on their pastrami. I may be disgusted to live in a society that allows such a culinary disaster, but I don't get to mandate how a sandwich is made.
Mayonnaise, on pastrami??? Kill yourself.
(that's a joke mods)
Seriously though.
Even IF we had a clearly defined, and quantified Positive-Zero-Negative scale for "quality of life worth living", we would still not need to use it to allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to live.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But the capacity for emotional desire did. Evolution itself is ugly, but the results are substantial. You would not have an emotional capacity without a mutation to form and regulate a certain chemical.
I agree, I like compassion, but you started this by saying that pain was justified because it has an evolutionary purpose. That is a bad argument.
But part of living in a society is accepting that some things are mandated, that there are rules.
Assuming those rules are just and fulfill a purpose.
If you honestly want to live in a society where people let other people die before attempting to help them, petition all for it and get it put to a vote, find a different country, or go live in the wild.
Again, mischaracterizing my argument. I'm not saying we don't attempt to help people, I am talking about people who have decided that they do not want to live.
Otherwise you can legally state that you don't want to be on life support if you are too injured or become dependent on it such that being taken off of it would kill you which coincides with Jay's compromise.
That only covers a very specific scenario. It doesn't cover situations where the person is unable to kill his or herself and a doctor could do it with minimal suffering. That's considered murder right now. It doesn't cover situations where a person wants to kill him or herself and is simply not allowed to.
We do not need to prove that someone would be better off dead, if that is even a coherent statement. I think people would be better off not putting mayonnaise on their pastrami. I may be disgusted to live in a society that allows such a culinary disaster, but I don't get to mandate how a sandwich is made.
Mayonnaise, on pastrami??? Kill yourself.
(that's a joke mods)
Seriously though.
Even IF we had a clearly defined, and quantified Positive-Zero-Negative scale for "quality of life worth living", we would still not need to use it to allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to live.
You're arguing in a different realm though. Why are the rules of society in place? Because people agreed that those rules lead to an optimal way to live. "Why" do you need to care about an optimal way to live? Well why do you need to care about anything? We don't you just let yourself die from starvation right now? That's the realm of your argument, because there is no ultimate "logic" for arbitrary structures, it simply depends on what type of society the people want to live in which right now leans towards having a responsibility of your life and somewhat for the lives of others.
We do not need to prove that someone would be better off dead, if that is even a coherent statement. I think people would be better off not putting mayonnaise on their pastrami. I may be disgusted to live in a society that allows such a culinary disaster, but I don't get to mandate how a sandwich is made.
Mayonnaise, on pastrami??? Kill yourself.
(that's a joke mods)
Seriously though.
Even IF we had a clearly defined, and quantified Positive-Zero-Negative scale for "quality of life worth living", we would still not need to use it to allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to live.
You're arguing in a different realm though. Why are the rules of society in place? Because people agreed that those rules lead to an optimal way to live. "Why" do you need to care about an optimal way to live? Well why do you need to care about anything? We don't you just let yourself die from starvation right now? That's the realm of your argument, because there is no ultimate "logic" for arbitrary structures, it simply depends on what type of society the people want to live in which right now leans towards having a responsibility of your life and somewhat for the lives of others.
Again, missing the point.
You are saying that other people should decide for me what is "optimal" without actually having a quantified description of what "optimal" means.
Furthermore, as has been stated, even if you had such a scaled description - It would hold no water. Because there is always going to be people BELOW that line who wish to live, and ABOVE that line who wish to die.
You are talking of "should" and "should not". We are talking about "can" and "cannot".
I'd rather the people who make up their minds about it, not be forced by the letter of the law to jump from a tall building and splatter on the ground, or take a gun to their face, or step in front of traffic, or drink bleach...when there is an available way for them to go out painlessly, and with whatever dignity they so choose to maintain in their death.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
We do not need to prove that someone would be better off dead, if that is even a coherent statement. I think people would be better off not putting mayonnaise on their pastrami. I may be disgusted to live in a society that allows such a culinary disaster, but I don't get to mandate how a sandwich is made.
Mayonnaise, on pastrami??? Kill yourself.
(that's a joke mods)
Seriously though.
Even IF we had a clearly defined, and quantified Positive-Zero-Negative scale for "quality of life worth living", we would still not need to use it to allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to live.
You're arguing in a different realm though. Why are the rules of society in place? Because people agreed that those rules lead to an optimal way to live. "Why" do you need to care about an optimal way to live? Well why do you need to care about anything? We don't you just let yourself die from starvation right now? That's the realm of your argument, because there is no ultimate "logic" for arbitrary structures, it simply depends on what type of society the people want to live in which right now leans towards having a responsibility of your life and somewhat for the lives of others.
Again, missing the point.
You are saying that other people should decide for me what is "optimal" without actually having a quantified description of what "optimal" means.
Furthermore, as has been stated, even if you had such a scaled description - It would hold no water. Because there is always going to be people BELOW that line who wish to live, and ABOVE that line who wish to die.
You are talking of "should" and "should not". We are talking about "can" and "cannot".
I'd rather the people who make up their minds about it, not be forced by the letter of the law to jump from a tall building and splatter on the ground, or take a gun to their face, or step in front of traffic, or drink bleach...when there is an available way for them to go out painlessly, and with whatever dignity they so choose to maintain in their death.
There isn't a missed point. I already stated you "can", yes you "can" decide to kill yourself, there is no law of physics that says you can't. However you're arguing against the notion of society regulating the capacity to instantly kill yourself. If you'd rather have a society such that people do not try and stop/help people from killing themselves, there's no logic to argue, its simply your personal preference and you simply need to change the law or pick a different place to live for that to happen because right now it seems a greater majority of people disagree with you, otherwise there would likely be at least some type of movement for it that gained much support. Obviously you "can" kill yourself just as you "can" do any other thing you physically can do.
I'm not on board with being able to walk into a clinic and pick up a syringe that sends you out in a comfortable dream at any point in time. That may allow rash states of mind to succeed in claiming more lives than they do now. Killing yourself requires a few more steps and planning, which in itself can be a deterrent when you are faced with violently ending your own life. "Your life your choice" is a little too broad.
Doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill patients suffering from chronic pain I could support.
I'm not on board with being able to walk into a clinic and pick up a syringe that sends you out in a comfortable dream at any point in time. That may allow rash states of mind to succeed in claiming more lives than they do now. Killing yourself requires a few more steps and planning, which in itself can be a deterrent when you are faced with violently ending your own life. "Your life your choice" is a little too broad.
We can walk into a Home Depot and buy about 47 different things that could kill us, without so much as showing ID, or getting a background check, or talking to anyone about our decision.
Why is the painlessness, or ease, of using "Cyanaid", bought from a place where the man across the counter might actually ask a few questions about your reasons for making such a purchase, maybe even reach out with sympathy and/or empathy somehow a bad thing?
Again, we're talking about can and cannot. Not should or should not.
The reason people commit suicide in often ugly and violent ways, is because they cannot (by law) do it in controlled decent ways.
At no time am I saying we should stop caring, or stop trying to help. We should give everyone as many good reasons to live as we can. I do not believe in an afterlife, so this is all we get. I'm not for carelessly throwing that away.
I am arguing that once a free individuals mind is made up, they shouldn't be forced by law to do it in a way that causes more suffering, or pain.
A gun shot might fail and leave them horribly injured, putting them in the hospital anyways. A tall building might not have been tall enough, leaving them horribly injured to suffer. Bleach causes vomiting, convulsions, serious pain before it finally works. Hanging can fail, or take longer than necessary resulting in more suffering before it does the trick...
Many of these methods end up causing harmful emotional trauma to others who happen to walk-in on the person, and whatever mess was caused by the methods they chose.
Not to mention that because of their unlawfulness, they usually keep the goal secret. It's almost like rape stigma, it gets buried, or goes unreported until it's too late.
A person who wants to end their life for whatever reason feels they have to be ashamed of it, and hide it, then their significant other walks in on a bathtub full of blood.
They fail to get their effects and business in order prior to their suicide attempts, leaving difficult and sometimes traumatic legal battles in their wake. Rather than just talking it over with family and friends, signing the proper paperwork to settle whatever business needs settling, and going out with a shred of decency.
Doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill patients suffering from chronic pain I could support.
Ooooh, so you need to be pitied enough first, then it's okay
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
That may allow rash states of mind to succeed in claiming more lives than they do now. Killing yourself requires a few more steps and planning, which in itself can be a deterrent when you are faced with violently ending your own life.
People almost never just up and kill themselves one day.
There is a progression toward suicide: suicidal thoughts (the idea of suicide occurs) to suicidal ideation (constantly thinking about it) to suicidal gestures (violence directed at one's self) to suicide attempts.
It really bothers me that so many want to control how other people live and die. I wonder how much they like it when they are told how and what to do when?
Again, we're talking about can and cannot. Not should or should not.
There's no point talking about "can" and "cannot", you "can" already do anything you are physically capable doing. Societies "can" try and regulate whatever as products they please. You "can" try and petition or send a letter to a congressman to try and change that if you disagree.
Again, we're talking about can and cannot. Not should or should not.
There's no point talking about "can" and "cannot", you "can" already do anything you are physically capable doing. Societies "can" try and regulate whatever as products they please. You "can" try and petition or send a letter to a congressman to try and change that if you disagree.
I am arguing that once a free individuals mind is made up, they shouldn't be forced by law to do it in a way that causes more suffering, or pain.
So in other words you are arguing a should or shouldn't situation.
Except that the person CANNOT go buy Cyanaid, because it's ILLEGAL.
I think that should change to CAN, and LEGAL.
It's true they CAN jump in front of a train, yay! But that's not the point I'm trying to make.
So I'm not arguing that people SHOULD (or shouldn't) buy Cyanaid, or use anything else for that matter to end their lives. I'm talking about the can and cannot part of being able to get euthanized.
It's true they CAN jump in front of a train, yay! But that's not the point I'm trying to make.
So I'm not arguing that people SHOULD (or shouldn't) buy Cyanaid, or use anything else for that matter to end their lives. I'm talking about the can and cannot part of being able to get euthanized.
But we've already established that its illegal to buy cyanide pills, why bring that point up yet again? No one's saying you want everyone to jump off a bridge, you're arguing against the societal regulations of chosing committing suicide.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh, so we shouldn't feel bad when someone dies or have the capacity to not kill each other, good to know.
But that doesn't address the fact that there is no consensus that all suffering is bad.
Well assuming they aren't a completely disabled vegetable, they have the literal capacity for a great deal of things, you don't need any emotion judgement for that. If you look at Stephen Hawking, a guy who's like 95% paralyzed, he's still a big name is theoretical physics. As I said before, there's no "real" obligation, it depends on the standard of society of you want to live in. If you want to live in a society where people honestly never give a crap about other people, then you're more than welcome to go back to the jungle or plains or some deserted island and live there, assuming it's not someone else's or the government's property.
Is her son an adult?
Did her son know what the pills did?
Did her son make his own conscious choice?
If the answer is yes to all, then sorry lady.
This is a poorly twisted straw man version of what I said.
Did the butcher inform the consumer the meat was rotten before they purchased it? If not, then that's called FRAUD, and there is a punishment for the crime of fraud, and if that crime of fraud resulted in death, welcome to manslaughter and criminal negligence at best, and possibly felony murder in the first degree at worst.
If the butcher did inform the customer that the meat was rotten, was the customer an adult?
Did the customer make a conscious choice to buy it?
The market ALREADY sells, and doctors even prescribe plenty of drugs that can kill, cleaning chemicals, dangerous or deadly weapons, tools, toys, choking hazards, you name it.
I'm pretty sure the market is ALREADY offering alternatives. Or have you never seen a Pro-life billboard, or heard a drug rehab center commercial. I see and hear them every day.
A deadly pathogen can cause harm to OTHERS without human action.
A gun can't kill other people without someone pulling the trigger. It's an inanimate object. A Pathogen isn't a bullet, it's a living thing, capable of spreading multiplying and evolving on it's own, and once released doesn't have a "target".
Straw Man again.
If the seller doesn't inform the customer that it kills you when you drink it, then they are guilty of FRAUD. See above about what happens after that.
Are you an adult?
Did you make a conscious choice to drink your acid?
Not the best slogan sorry, I'm sure we can do better than that.
I like:
"If you absolutely, positively, need to die overnight, Cyanaid! Now in Strawberry and Tropical Punch!"
or
"Tired of living? Try Cyanaid for quick relief."
Also, adding "heaven" is irresponsible of the advertiser. Heaven might be a lie, and therefore fraud.
I'd rather live in a society that gives people a good reason to live, rather than just mandates that you must live.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'd like to see you attempt to say that in person, and see if you can manage to do it.
Except it's not a strawman because you have no evidence whatsoever that people are happier or better off dead, marketing a cyanide pill as "relief" could just as easily be fraud. In fact what if they go to hell for committing suicide? Then they're even worse off.
But not with the purpose of killing someone. If all those chemicals already exist, then what's your argument? You can just drink some bleach and get it over with.
See above for response.
I can't remember that well, I was drunk and depressed and I regret half the things I did at the bar last night, like apparently ordering fluorsoulfuric acid.
Then welcome to society. The point isn't that your being forced to live, it's that society has decided that there is no consensus that people are better off dead, and so they have the decency to try and improve other's lives and say "wait, you can make it through this" rather than just throw those lives away.
And I don't like the mischaracterization of my opinion that I want to live in a society where "people honestly never give a crap about other people." I'm talking about respecting the wishes of other people and not enforcing your beliefs on them. You're talking about a society that says that what a person wants is so irrelevant as to give other people the right to decide who lives and who dies.
Ok, so if you said evolution is hugely inefficient, then having emotions and having the capacity to not kill each other is inefficient as those arose from evolution.
Not if you want to live in what is called a "society", more specifically I suppose a democratic one, where every person has some part in the system that effects the lives of everyone.
As I keep saying, you have no ultimate obligation, you "can" do any physical thing you are capable of at any moment. BUT, it's not about denying anyone rights, it's about the fact that we have no proof that people are better off dead, and so, as a society of sentient beings with the capacity to care about the lives and well-being of others with rules and laws, it is said that other alternative should be attempted to help yourself before conceding to death.
There is nothing I could say on this forum to prove I am precisely the kind of person who could say that to a grieving mother, except that I believe I am.
At NO time in this thread have I argued people are better off dead. I've only argued that if they don't want to be alive, they shouldn't have to be, and they shouldn't be forced by various laws to do something unnecessarily violent or ugly, or messy, in order to carry out their wishes.
Does everyone need to kill a cow themselves to get some hamburger? No. Someone will do it for you and put the meat in a nice neat package you can conveniently pick up at the store.
You're the one bringing up illness, drug use, depressions, etc.
I don't care if the person is super happy with no problems and no illnesses. If they feel like checking out early, so be it.
Sure, bleach is an option.
That's neither here nor there. I could maybe kill ducks with a throwing star, or a sling shot, or a stick of dynamite. Thankfully, someone makes a 28" barreled, 12 gauge, semi-automatic shotgun in woodland-camo, with a recoil damping stock, and TruGlo fatbead dual color fiber optic sights, making it so much easier and funner for me to fill my bag.
What response? You didn't respond to anything the fact that if you sell tainted meat, or deadly chemicals, without informing your customers of the truth, it's fraud.
Not my problem.
Drunk people get behind the wheel too. Unfortunately, they often harm OTHERS, and not just themselves.
We don't ban alcohol, or cars, or bars. We punish the misuse of those things.
As Zaph said, there doesn't need to be a consensus.
I do not need to find a social consensus that states having ice cream is better than not having ice cream, for me to decide for myself whether or not I buy ice cream.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You've missed the point entirely.
If you don't think people are better off dead and think there is a way they can be helped, then you have no real reason to advocate for their deaths.
Advocating for legal euthanasia is not advocating for people to die. It is advocating for people to be able to choose for themselves whether they die. The fundamental thing that a euthanasia advocate is arguing for is individual choice, not death.
People interfere with the choices of other people all the time. Their arguement is "go kill yourself if you feel like it", and the other arguement that I happen to be siding with is "just stop and think it through. There's no garuntee you're better off dead and there's still a chance to help you". I did not miss the point, it is simply the case that the type of society that lives by the second arguement is by nature forfeiting the ability to let people choose to do it at any time they feel like it, at least within the parameters that it can be controlled, and I'm explaining why.
And some times the rest of society agrees. However, would you rather live in a society where people say "sure let him kill himself, I don't care, not my problem", or "just stop and think about it, there's other alternatives and I'm willing to help you"?
Yeah, perhaps I typed out my response too quickly.
I actually believe there are cases where the use of euthanasia is acceptable, but I definitely think it needs to be reserved for the very extreme cases where there isn't any hope for recovery and palliative care isn't effective.
There has to be a clearly defined ethics team in place before such requests should be granted.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
But the capacity for emotional desire did. Evolution itself is ugly, but the results are substantial. You would not have an emotional capacity without a mutation to form and regulate a certain chemical.
But part of living in a society is accepting that some things are mandated, that there are rules. If you honestly want to live in a society where people let other people die before attempting to help them, petition all for it and get it put to a vote, find a different country, or go live in the wild. Otherwise you can legally state that you don't want to be on life support if you are too injured or become dependent on it such that being taken off of it would kill you which coincides with Jay's compromise.
Mayonnaise, on pastrami??? Kill yourself.
(that's a joke mods)
Seriously though.
Even IF we had a clearly defined, and quantified Positive-Zero-Negative scale for "quality of life worth living", we would still not need to use it to allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to live.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You're arguing in a different realm though. Why are the rules of society in place? Because people agreed that those rules lead to an optimal way to live. "Why" do you need to care about an optimal way to live? Well why do you need to care about anything? We don't you just let yourself die from starvation right now? That's the realm of your argument, because there is no ultimate "logic" for arbitrary structures, it simply depends on what type of society the people want to live in which right now leans towards having a responsibility of your life and somewhat for the lives of others.
Again, missing the point.
You are saying that other people should decide for me what is "optimal" without actually having a quantified description of what "optimal" means.
Furthermore, as has been stated, even if you had such a scaled description - It would hold no water. Because there is always going to be people BELOW that line who wish to live, and ABOVE that line who wish to die.
You are talking of "should" and "should not". We are talking about "can" and "cannot".
I'd rather the people who make up their minds about it, not be forced by the letter of the law to jump from a tall building and splatter on the ground, or take a gun to their face, or step in front of traffic, or drink bleach...when there is an available way for them to go out painlessly, and with whatever dignity they so choose to maintain in their death.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
There isn't a missed point. I already stated you "can", yes you "can" decide to kill yourself, there is no law of physics that says you can't. However you're arguing against the notion of society regulating the capacity to instantly kill yourself. If you'd rather have a society such that people do not try and stop/help people from killing themselves, there's no logic to argue, its simply your personal preference and you simply need to change the law or pick a different place to live for that to happen because right now it seems a greater majority of people disagree with you, otherwise there would likely be at least some type of movement for it that gained much support. Obviously you "can" kill yourself just as you "can" do any other thing you physically can do.
Doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill patients suffering from chronic pain I could support.
We can walk into a Home Depot and buy about 47 different things that could kill us, without so much as showing ID, or getting a background check, or talking to anyone about our decision.
Why is the painlessness, or ease, of using "Cyanaid", bought from a place where the man across the counter might actually ask a few questions about your reasons for making such a purchase, maybe even reach out with sympathy and/or empathy somehow a bad thing?
Again, we're talking about can and cannot. Not should or should not.
The reason people commit suicide in often ugly and violent ways, is because they cannot (by law) do it in controlled decent ways.
At no time am I saying we should stop caring, or stop trying to help. We should give everyone as many good reasons to live as we can. I do not believe in an afterlife, so this is all we get. I'm not for carelessly throwing that away.
I am arguing that once a free individuals mind is made up, they shouldn't be forced by law to do it in a way that causes more suffering, or pain.
A gun shot might fail and leave them horribly injured, putting them in the hospital anyways. A tall building might not have been tall enough, leaving them horribly injured to suffer. Bleach causes vomiting, convulsions, serious pain before it finally works. Hanging can fail, or take longer than necessary resulting in more suffering before it does the trick...
Many of these methods end up causing harmful emotional trauma to others who happen to walk-in on the person, and whatever mess was caused by the methods they chose.
Not to mention that because of their unlawfulness, they usually keep the goal secret. It's almost like rape stigma, it gets buried, or goes unreported until it's too late.
A person who wants to end their life for whatever reason feels they have to be ashamed of it, and hide it, then their significant other walks in on a bathtub full of blood.
They fail to get their effects and business in order prior to their suicide attempts, leaving difficult and sometimes traumatic legal battles in their wake. Rather than just talking it over with family and friends, signing the proper paperwork to settle whatever business needs settling, and going out with a shred of decency.
Ooooh, so you need to be pitied enough first, then it's okay
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I doubt there would ever be a euthanasia program that didn't require people to sit down with a psychologist beforehand.
People almost never just up and kill themselves one day.
There is a progression toward suicide: suicidal thoughts (the idea of suicide occurs) to suicidal ideation (constantly thinking about it) to suicidal gestures (violence directed at one's self) to suicide attempts.
There's no point talking about "can" and "cannot", you "can" already do anything you are physically capable doing. Societies "can" try and regulate whatever as products they please. You "can" try and petition or send a letter to a congressman to try and change that if you disagree.
So in other words you are arguing a should or shouldn't situation.
Except that the person CANNOT go buy Cyanaid, because it's ILLEGAL.
I think that should change to CAN, and LEGAL.
It's true they CAN jump in front of a train, yay! But that's not the point I'm trying to make.
So I'm not arguing that people SHOULD (or shouldn't) buy Cyanaid, or use anything else for that matter to end their lives. I'm talking about the can and cannot part of being able to get euthanized.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But we've already established that its illegal to buy cyanide pills, why bring that point up yet again? No one's saying you want everyone to jump off a bridge, you're arguing against the societal regulations of chosing committing suicide.