What is the argument in favour of euthanasia for people who are not about to die?

We both know why.

 

No I have no idea. Why would I assume what you think?

 

But it's not though. If someone is in possession of a 50 year old child porn image, you cannot seriously say that is contributing to the delinquency (and/or abuse) of a minor. Possession being illegal obviously conflicts with your 'harm' standard. There's just no getting around it.

If you read what I said, I was referring to "real child pornography" which leads to harm. I was distinguishing that from what you referred to as "simulated child porn." My point being, that while you can at least TRY to make a case for possession of real child pornography being illegal on the grounds that it causes harm, you simply CANNOT make a case for possession of simulated child porn being illegal on those same grounds. But I don't need to tell you this, because you have said above that "they cannot be harmed" clarifying your position on this. Yet, you said in your last post that you are "less clear", "whether or not 'simulated' child porn (e.g., cartoons, or actual adults that appear that they could be minors) should count." So my question is: WHY? Why are you even remotely uncertain, given your 'harm' standard? You should be able to say that production of, and possession of simulated child porn should be 100% legal.

Ok, so you believe in natural rights. That's interesting, as in my experience it's really only religious conservatives who believe in that. In my experience, most people who are not a member of an organised religion would say that all rights come from the government, which is obviously a really stupid position. So if you believe in rights which pre-exist government, where do those rights come from?

The question was: How the hell can someone PLAN to off themselves as a result of receiving a cig? How is smoking a "plan" for someone to "off themselves" exactly?

It's ridiculous to think of it as bodily autonomy when you are not in control of it.

Yeah but how do you know that someone is specifically voting to violate people's individual freedoms rather than just voting for a particular candidate?

We all live in a society together. If I don't want to live in a society of 'death', a culture of 'death' where people are more and more walking into a so called 'doctor's' surgery and being kill by them, one day potentially affecting my family, and your opinion is that this should be allowed, then you are 'imposing your opinion' on me. If I don't want to live in a society surrounded by deadly meth addicts, and your opinion is that this should be allowed, then you are 'imposing your opinion' on me. Even with murder, both you and I believe that it should remain illegal - well we are both 'imposing our opinion' on people who would like to murder. "Imposing your/our opinion" is according to your logic, whereas I don't believe that the illegality/legality of something means that individuals are 'imposing' their opinions on others.

Correct.

In a bank robbery, it's the bank which looses the money. Who is the victim exactly?

So the person who is just tired of living, but who has no other actual issues, should be denied assisted suicide?

But there are NO "conditions" under which a minor should be able to buy alcohol?

Generally not legally accessible by them? How can they POSSIBLY legally buy alcohol? It seems that it's more than merely "generally" not legally accessible by them! What am I missing?

It is a "fact" to YOU! Your experience cannot transfer to another person as a fact! I'm sure that you know that.

Yes, because it's not an "organised religion."

Yes, but there is just "religion." Britannica defines "religion" as our: "relation to that which we regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death." Again, you have a BLATANTLY religious position. SOURCE: https://www.britannica.com/topic/religion

 

@DentalFloss, just checking that you saw my reply: htttp://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-is-the-argument-in-favour-of-euthanasia-for-people-who-are-not-about-to-die.610895/page-10#post-1074267254

 

Of course I can because even if it took place decades ago, a minor (often a pre-pubescent one) was in fact harmed in order to make said child porn, therefore anyone who possesses it is contributing to that crime.

Yes, you are probably right about that. It's just the seediness that pushes me into a grey area of doubt, but in fact, someone drawing a cartoon, even if it is of children doing pornish things, well, nobody got hurt, indeed nobody but the cartoonist was even involved in the creation of it. So, yes, under the 'do no harm' standard, it ought to be legal. I guess I don't have to actually like it to concede that point.

Stop playing prosecutor and trying to ask 'Gotcha' questions during cross-examination by playing word games.

Yes, I believe that homo sapiens are and ought to be born as free persons, and that those freedoms to do as they would like to do, such as put mind-altering substances into their own bodies, to own firearms for sport and self-defense, to freely travel, to be free from so many things the Constitution was designed to PROTECT, not PROVIDE, come simply as a birthright based on being human. No religion required.

This video (here) will explain it in exactly 3 minutes better than I can, and it will save me some typing.

Slowly.

But, it serves as a good example on the drug question. Tobacco is legal, despite the efforts of many to undermine that status, to price it into oblivion so that nobody can afford it, and I'm quite sure some of your more intense nanny staters would literally ban it if only they could scrape up enough support, though, like drug laws, I would argue that a Constitutional Amendment would be required for them (the Congress) to have the authority to do so in the first place. Like drugs, it's bad for you, and can and does kill people on a daily basis. Yes, for most folk it takes decade after decade of continuous use, but... Still, it's legal. As it should be, for the reasons I keep referring to, and that were summarized in the video I linked that you probably haven't watched.

I don't even know what it is you're trying to convey here.

You don't. However, if you are aware that you are voting for a candidate that wants to violate the right of individuals to be free, sentient adults, then perhaps you should get your head examined and do the right thing, instead of trying to control perfect strangers, and dictate to them how they are to live. It's nonya.

Murder causes harm to another person, against their will. Ergo, it is a legitimate thing to ban.

Otherwise, it sounds like you are not compatible with a truly free society, because the reality is that freedom comes with downsides. But I would much, much rather live in a society that was dealing with the consequences of having too much freedom, than to live in one dealing with the consequences of too little.

Then there is no justification to ban people who want to partake, either as a provider, customer, or both, from doing so free of interference from disinterested outsiders.

I'm not sure what sort of game you're playing with this gotcha, but that's a bit of a dumb question. The people harmed are the people who own the bank (whomever that may be), the insurance company and the people who own it, the re-insurance company and the people who own that, and if the theft is large enough, perhaps it could go as far as to regular Joe Sixpack customers, and even all the way to taxpayers if it has to be bailed out under FDIC or whatever. Any other dumb questions?

No. A person who is of sound mind can decide they want to check out for any reason, or for no reason at all.

Well, outside of the argument that we should have ONE and only ONE "age of majority", at which point a person ceases being a child, and becomes an adult able to do anything all other adults can do, including buying booze, there is no circumstances where a minor can purchase alcohol. At least not the drinking kind.

That doesn't make it not a fact. It doesn't make the experience of others who have had similar things happen not facts, either, just because they can't show you a video of their temporary vacation away from being human.

Dude, just stop. My spirituality is not a religion, despite what the people at britannica might have said about it. While there are probably more people who adhere to the same sort of spirituality I do than there are who follow any dogmatic manmade organized 'religions', it has no name, no address, no HDIC, no 'scriptures', no 'holy' book, no list of rules, no weekly meetings, in fact no nothing. But there are a ton of people waking up to the reality of our own divinity, and the fact that we are individuals, but at the same time we are a part of the whole of all that is... The Source of all consciousness, which is the only fundamentally real thing. You might start trying to learn meditation, perhaps if you're good at it, you can experience some of what I did, in terms of having a firsthand experience with the 'other side', perhaps an out of body situation, remote viewing, past life regressions, and so on.

But... There is no structure. No central authority, no tomes to just 'believe' because your daddy's daddy taught him who taught you and so forth back in history. The biggest difference (perhaps) is that all paths lead to the same place, and this idea that some souls end up with eternal punishments of hellfire and damnation are outrageously bad. Hell, used pejoratively, does not exist simply put. This... "Life" that we lead is but a play, and we are but actors, but we don't even realize it. All trying to evolve our consciousness, not all that dissimilar to 'enlightenment' in Buddhism, yet still different. Although the philosophy is not all that different between some of the eastern thinkings on such things than the more traditional western religious 'traditions', which are complete bunk.

Try as hard as you like, however, but you'll never find a 'Church of the Dental Floss' out there anywhere, because there is no such thing. And I hope it never goes in that direction, because then it will just get spoiled by those who would use it for personal gain, like the big whigs of various 'churches' throughout the world, or at least the western part.

 

In what way are they "contributing to that crime?" I note that you have moved away from framing it in terms of 'harm', at least in the context of the '50 year old child porn image' scenario which I presented.

So are you talking about 'rights', or not?

I watched it, and it told me nothing that you haven't already told me. Should drink driving be illegal?

What you mean is that smoking has the potential to kill someone "slowly." This does not mean that smokers "PLAN to off themselves" by smoking. As a reminder, you said: "I think it should be legal to both give someone a cig or a gun, even knowing they plan to off themselves as a result." Off themselves with a gun? Sure, obviously that can happen. But a cig? Maybe you can admit that your argument has gone slightly awry here.

I think that weed should be legal. I think that it is totally inconsistent for weed to be illegal, but for tobacco and alcohol to be legal. That's because tobacco is similar enough to weed, and as for alcohol, well it can kill a man in a few hours if he drinks enough of it! So we definitely have some common ground here.

Just that something cannot be an act of bodily autonomy when you are not doing it to yourself. Is it an act of bodily autonomy to get heart surgery?

Yes, but it's totally impossible to separate the people who are specifically voting to violate people's individual freedoms from the people who are just voting for a particular candidate. As a reminder, this all stems from you saying: "Whenever an action is prohibited, then whoever is doing the prohibiting is both imposing their will on someone who might do whatever it is, as well infringing their freedoms." To which I replied: "Whoever is doing the prohibiting?" It's not an individual! It's the government, elected by the people which is doing the prohibiting!"

Yes, it's a legitimate thing to ban. And those who believe that it should remain banned, are JUSTLY 'imposing their opinion' on people who would like to murder. Isn't that what you would say?

You talk about 'freedom', but someone who is addicted to a substance, is in no way enjoying any degree of 'freedom.' They are in no way 'free.' They are in fact a slave to that substance.

We all live in a society together. If I don't want to live in a society of 'death', a culture of 'death' where people are more and more walking into a so called 'doctor's' surgery and being killed by them, one day potentially affecting my family, and your opinion is that this should be allowed, then you are 'imposing your opinion' on me. If I don't want to live in a society surrounded by deadly meth addicts, and your opinion is that this should be allowed, then you are 'imposing your opinion' on me.

Alright, so it's what one might call 'corporate harm.' That's fine. I was just seeing if you limit the 'harm' principle to individuals, but clearly you do not.

The person who is just tired of living, but who has no other actual issues, doesn't sound like someone who is
"of sound mind" to me! Either way, do you have a different opinion for people who are NOT of "sound mind?"

And does this happen to be your argument?

Yes, your spirituality is not A religion. But your spirituality falls under the heading of 'religion.' If you had an alternative definition for 'religion', you probably would have already provided it.

Yes, because once again, it's not an "organised religion!" It is however, a 'religious worldview.'

"Used pejoratively?" Can "hell" exist in any other usage?

If there was, the 'Church of the Dental Floss' would be an "organised religion!" And in case you didn't already realise it, "organised religion" is very much NOT what I am talking about!

 

@DentalFloss you may have missed the above reply. Or you're all out of arguments, but I doubt that's the case.

 

I doubt I'm out of arguments, per se, though I may have essentially spoken my peace on the topic. However, that is not why I disengaged from this conversation. Rather, we were not debating or arguing, you were interrogating me, and more to the point, you have been engaged in a strategic and methodical cross-examination that is elicited to extract some sort of "Aha, gotcha!" if you can detect any sort of inconsistency in my positions, like your attempt to call my spiritual experiences some sort of religion.

And thus concludes my participation here.

 

If you believed in your positions and could defend them, then it would be impossible for me to 'get you' with anything that you might consider "gotcha." People who object to 'gotchas' obviously acknowledge that in some way they have been exposed. And this is clearly the case with you. And the idea that some degree of cross-examination is not involved in debate is pretty laughable. So in summary then:

• You have not been able to state if drink driving should be illegal
• You have not been able to defend your position that smoking is a "plan" for someone to "off themselves", not even that, but that it can be done with one cigarette.
• You have not been able to defend your position that assisted suicide is "bodily autonomy"
• You have not been able to state if you agree that people who believe that murder should remain banned, are JUSTLY 'imposing their opinion' on people who would like to murder
• You have not been able to defend your position that someone who is addicted to a substance, has "freedom"
• You have not been able to counter my challenge that you are 'imposing your opinion' on me by wanting assisted suicide to be legal
• You have said that a person who is of sound mind can decide that they want to check out for any reason, but you have not said what the case should be for a person who is NOT of "sound mind"
• You have not been able to counter my challenge that you have a blatantly 'religious worldview' - NOT that you are a member of an
  "organised religion." I mean for goodness sake, you believe in the AFTERLIFE! Yeah, nothing religious about that is there!