Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Right to Die - Appeal Rejected

124»

Comments

  • #152
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Nodin wrote: »
    The question relates to those carrying it out in a different time period.

    If human sacrifice was not wrong in the past then why would it be wrong now?

    Why is slavery wrong today is it wasn't wrong long ago?
    Do please explain.

    The current cultural zeitgest is a worship of physical perfection and the easy life.

    Killing the sick and the ill is a human sacrifice toward this deity.

    Without objective morality you cannot tell me why anything is right or wrong.


  • #153
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    You don't think they were evil?
    No. I think they were misguided and wrong.

    You, on the other hand, seem to believe that hundreds of millions of people throughout the history of the world up until the last few years made a conscious decision to ignore their innate knowledge of the objective fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and decided to be evil by condemning it.

    Yeah, that makes sense.
    How do you defend yourself from evil doers and how do you teach your kids right and wrong?
    I don't have kids, and my definition of an evildoer is someone who wants to harm me in some way. You know, like the people who want me to suffer unbearable pain for the rest of my life should I ever become too disabled to kill myself.
    There have to be OBJECTIVE moral values or there is no morality.
    Have you spoken to anyone of your parents' generation who disapproves of homosexuality and asked them why they're evil?


  • #154
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    So we can have a shared society in which some people think killing defenseless people is right and other people think killing is wrong?

    That's utterly illogical.

    There is only ONE objective morality.

    We all know what is right and we all know what is wrong.

    Immorality dressed up as some supposed morality is still wrong no matter what anyone says otherwise.

    There is no individual interpretation of right and wrong.

    Objective morality already exists.


    You keep repeating that there is an objective morality, but you're not explaining why anyone should agree with you.

    Take abortion for example: lots of people genuinely believe it is wrong, many others genuinely believe denying abortion is wrong. Both groups are following their instincts, to a large extent.

    While we instinctively have a sense of fair play, we can also be instinctively selfish. There are many conflicting motivations vying for supremacy in the human brain, any one individual's take on whether a specific thing is right or wrong will depend on their genetic makeup, their upbringing, the cultural and religious values of their society, on their own life experience, on their ability to empathise with others, among other factors.

    If there really were an objective morality we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.


  • #155
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    If human sacrifice was not wrong in the past then why would it be wrong now?

    Why is slavery wrong today is it wasn't wrong long ago?.

    It was wrong then, however the people who carried it out thought it good and proper.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »

    The current cultural zeitgest is a worship of physical perfection and the easy life.

    Killing the sick and the ill is a human sacrifice toward this deity.

    Without objective morality you cannot tell me why anything is right or wrong.


    Rhetorical ****, to be blunt. No-one has suggested killing the sick or the ill.


  • #156
    Quatermain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭Quatermain


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    If you carry through your threat to kill I will personally make sure you go to prison for the rest of your life.

    Threat? Really? Carrying out a last wish from a dying relative is a threat? I'm pretty sure we can now discount basically everything you continue to say, given that your posts contain not a single whit of empathy.

    In addition, I'm pretty sure this is a legal threat, which is against the forum rules. Utterly baseless, too.

    Further, speaking as an archaeologist, ritual killings in Mexico had a strong religious and ideological basis. It was all about advancing oneself in the eyes of their gods, and returning sacrifices for the gift of the sun. It has little, if anything, to do with ensuring that someone you love and respect dies in the manner they choose.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No. I think they were misguided and wrong.

    They weren't misguided. They made a fully informed decision to sacrifice human beings. They knew these people would suffer and die but they killed them anyway.
    You, on the other hand, seem to believe that hundreds of millions of people throughout the history of the world up until the last few years made a conscious decision to ignore their innate knowledge of the objective fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and decided to be evil by condemning it.

    Yes.
    Yeah, that makes sense.

    As opposed to a moral free for all whatever you having yourself subjective morality?
    I don't have kids, and my definition of an evildoer is someone who wants to harm me in some way.

    That is just your subjective opinion.

    I could argue that it is my subjective right to rape and kill you and your future kids?

    How would you be able to defend your subjective world v my subjective world view?
    Have you spoken to anyone of your parents' generation who disapproves of homosexuality and asked them why they're evil?

    Yes. They said they because they believed it was wrong that it was wrong.
    When I demonstrated that modern science indicates homosexuals cannot help being gay they refused to listen.

    Am I supposed to just accept their bigotry because my morality is subjective and theirs is too?

    Are you kidding?


  • #158
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Quatermain wrote: »
    Threat? Really? Carrying out a last wish from a dying relative is a threat? I'm pretty sure we can now discount basically everything you continue to say, given that your posts contain not a single whit of empathy.

    You have made a threat to kill someone - an act of cold blooded murder.

    Why should I have any empathy for a murderer?
    In addition, I'm pretty sure this is a legal threat, which is against the forum rules. Utterly baseless, too.

    You are incriminating yourself if you follow through on your threat to kill.
    Further, speaking as an archaeologist, ritual killings in Mexico had a strong religious and ideological basis.

    So what? The Holocaust and the random murders of Catholics and Protestants by paramilitary groups had a strong religious and ideological basis.
    Hell the 9/11 attacks had a strong religious and ideological basis.

    That argument is demonstrable bullsh*t.
    It was all about advancing oneself in the eyes of their gods, and returning sacrifices for the gift of the sun. It has little, if anything, to do with ensuring that someone you love and respect dies in the manner they choose.

    In the 21st century people worship material reality and consumerism. A person who is ill and in pain does not fit within a hectic break neck capitalist vision. Therefore they should be killed so as not to be a burden.

    It's the same thing.

    Cold blooded murder.


  • #159
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    They weren't misguided. They made a fully informed decision to sacrifice human beings. They knew these people would suffer and die but they killed them anyway.
    I was talking about slave owners and those who opposed homosexuality, but let's play it your way.

    Presumably those who performed human sacrifice did so because they believed it was important to do so. Perhaps they believed that it was necessary to ensure a good harvest, or to make sure that spring would come again after winter.

    You've claimed that they made a "fully informed decision" - you're claiming (without evidence) that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but that they did it anyway, because they were evil.

    That's not just a stupid claim, it's an infantile one.
    As opposed to a moral free for all whatever you having yourself subjective morality?
    No, not as opposed to that. I've already pointed out that that's a straw man argument, and the fact that you continue to use it indicates clearly that not only are you on shaky logical ground, but you know it and are continuing to be illogical anyway.


    (How do you like them apples?)
    I could argue that it is my subjective right to rape and kill you and your future kids?
    You've already argued that it's your objective right to kill me if I happen to be a soldier of a country that you're at war with. This, apparently, is an indisputable and unshakable moral law which has always been true and always will.

    You'll excuse me if I don't pass too much heed on what you believe to be right and wrong.
    Yes. They said they because they believed it was wrong that it was wrong.
    Did you tell them that they were liars, because they were born knowing it wasn't wrong, and therefore they're not just evil bigots, they're evil bigoted liars?


  • #160
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Nodin wrote: »
    It was wrong then, however the people who carried it out thought it good and proper.

    The jihadists beheading people in Syria and other godforsaken places think exactly the same thing.

    So why do you think they are wrong?

    According to your world view you have no right to condemn them do you?

    What about the paras on Bloody Sunday? They enjoyed gunning down innocent people? They thought it was good and proper didn't they?

    Without objective morality you can't condemn what they did.
    Rhetorical ****, to be blunt. No-one has suggested killing the sick or the ill.

    Isn't this what this thread is all about?:D


  • #161
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »

    [ more ranting ]

    Cold blooded murder.

    You really are that sure that you are absolutely right about everything? Your arrogance is something else, but then anyone with a whit of empathy or the tiniest bit of modesty wouldn't be so dogmatic. Your inability to even consider that someone with a terminal illness, in great pain, and unable to end their own life should be allowed assistance to speed up the inevitable, is to my mind incredibly cruel.

    I doubt you think of yourself as cruel though.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    The jihadists beheading people in Syria and other godforsaken places think exactly the same thing.
    You're contradicting yourself. You've claimed that they know it's wrong, and are doing what they believe to be wrong because they're evil. Now you're claiming that they think it good and proper.

    Which is it?
    Isn't this what this thread is all about?:D
    No. This thread is about assisting suicide. You have expressed the belief that if someone wants to die, then they have a right to die if they are capable of killing themselves. You've also argued that someone who wants to die but who isn't capable of killing themselves doesn't have the right to die.

    Which is, to be fair, completely consistent with the logic you've displayed so far.


  • #163
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I was talking about slave owners and those who opposed homosexuality, but let's play it your way.

    Presumably those who performed human sacrifice did so because they believed it was important to do so. Perhaps they believed that it was necessary to ensure a good harvest, or to make sure that spring would come again after winter.

    You've claimed that they made a "fully informed decision" - you're claiming (without evidence) that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but that they did it anyway, because they were evil.

    When people are going to be killed they usually scream for mercy and plead with their killers not to do it, that this is crazy, that they don't have to do this.

    They ignored the pleading and the screaming as the knives sank into flesh and they tore out organs and they victims wailed in their death agony.

    They would have known they would not have wished to die in the same way.

    They would have known this was wrong.

    So they had no excuses and they knew what they were doing was OBJECTIVELY evil.
    That's not just a stupid claim, it's an infantile one.

    It clearly isn't.
    No, not as opposed to that. I've already pointed out that that's a straw man argument, and the fact that you continue to use it indicates clearly that not only are you on shaky logical ground, but you know it and are continuing to be illogical anyway.


    (How do you like them apples?) You've already argued that it's your objective right to kill me if I happen to be a soldier of a country that you're at war with. This, apparently, is an indisputable and unshakable moral law which has always been true and always will.

    You are struggling like a drowning man now. You have been comprehensively picked apart. You have no comebacks.
    You'll excuse me if I don't pass too much heed on what you believe to be right and wrong. Did you tell them that they were liars, because they were born knowing it wasn't wrong, and therefore they're not just evil bigots, they're evil bigoted liars?

    Yes. I have always known that homosexuality is not evil. They did too but gave into indoctrination and bigotry.


  • #164
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,191 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Assisted suicide is murder.

    Suicide has been decriminalised. How can assissting someone to do something which is not a crime be itself a crime?


  • #165
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You've also argued that someone who wants to die but who isn't capable of killing themselves doesn't have the right to die.

    If an able bodied person kills a helpless person who is not a direct threat to the life of another they are committing murder.


  • #166
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    The jihadists beheading people in Syria and other godforsaken places think exactly the same thing.

    So why do you think they are wrong?
    A caliphate is a silly notion and should not, in any event, be imposed without consent.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    According to your world view you have no right to condemn them do you?

    What about the paras on Bloody Sunday? They enjoyed gunning down innocent people? They thought it was good and proper didn't they?

    Without objective morality you can't condemn what they did.

    They were conducting policing as it had been done all over the Empire. As they were enforcing the dictat of a sectarian statelet, they were in fact wrong.


    Isn't this what this thread is all about?:D[/QUOTE]


  • #167
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    When people are going to be killed they usually scream for mercy and plead with their killers not to do it, that this is crazy, that they don't have to do this.

    They ignored the pleading and the screaming as the knives sank into flesh and they tore out organs and they victims wailed in their death agony.

    They would have known they would not have wished to die in the same way.

    They would have known this was wrong.

    So they had no excuses and they knew what they were doing was OBJECTIVELY evil.
    ...unless their victims happened to be enemy soldiers, in which case: rock on.
    You are struggling like a drowning man now. You have been comprehensively picked apart. You have no comebacks.
    ...says you, instead of rebutting what I said.
    Yes. I have always known that homosexuality is not evil. They did too but gave into indoctrination and bigotry.
    Were you born knowing that it's OK to kill people with whom you're at war?


  • #168
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Suicide has been decriminalised. How can assissting someone to do something which is not a crime be itself a crime?

    Because it is killing a person who is not a direct threat to life of others.

    Killing is only permissible to save the lives of others - in war, to prevent murder, to save the life of a mother from a dangerous pregnancy.


  • #169
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...unless their victims happened to be enemy soldiers, in which case: rock on. ...says you, instead of rebutting what I said. Were you born knowing that it's OK to kill people with whom you're at war?

    Yes.


  • #170
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    It is not shameful to uphold the sanctity of human life. [...] It is only permissible to intentionally kill another human being if they are an enemy soldier in war or a person whose actions are threatening the life of someone else.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Without objective morality you cannot tell me why anything is right or wrong.
    Spent long thinking through your morality?


  • #171
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Nodin wrote: »
    A caliphate is a silly notion and should not, in any event, be imposed without consent.

    That's your subjective opinion.
    They were conducting policing as it had been done all over the Empire. As they were enforcing the dictat of a sectarian statelet, they were in fact wrong.

    That's just your subjective opinion.

    Isn't this what this thread is all about?:D

    This thread is about so-called mercy killing which is in fact murder.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,191 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Because it is killing a person who is not a direct threat to life of others.

    Killing is only permissible to save the lives of others - in war, to prevent murder, to save the life of a mother from a dangerous pregnancy.

    It's not killing, per se. One is only assisting in what the other party wants.

    And who exactly decides when killing is permissable? Or are you still in thrall to the bible?


  • #173
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    If an able bodied person kills a helpless person who is not a direct threat to the life of another they are committing murder.

    The problem with black and white morality is that the world is messy and full of grey.

    Let's say I'm in a war somewhere. I'm about to be captured, and me and my buddy know that I will be brutally tortured and then killed. I'm out of ammo and as I'm being dragged away by my captors, I manage to signal to my buddy a pre-arranged "kill me - make it quick" signal, maybe by miming shooting myself in the head.

    Let's say we have already vowed to each other that we would not let the other be taken alive in such circumstances. If he then blows my brains out, how do you judge that?

    Is it all bad? Somewhat bad? A little bit ok?


  • #174
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    robindch wrote: »
    Spent long thinking through your morality?

    The other posters on this thread obviously haven't.


  • #175
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    swampgas wrote: »
    The problem with black and white morality is that the world is messy and full of grey.

    This issue is black and white.
    Let's say I'm in a war somewhere. I'm about to be captured, and me and my buddy know that I will be brutally tortured and then killed. I'm out of ammo and as I'm being dragged away by my captors, I manage to signal to my buddy a pre-arranged "kill me - make it quick" signal, maybe by miming shooting myself in the head.

    Let's say we have already vowed to each other that we would let the other be taken alive in such circumstances. If he then blows my brains out, how do you judge that?

    Is it all bad? Somewhat bad? A little bit ok?

    It's murder.

    Why would there be any other word for it?


  • #176
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    The other posters on this thread obviously haven't.
    I'm asking you since you clearly haven't.


  • #177
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It's not killing, per se. One is only assisting in what the other party wants.

    The person who dies and person who kills them are two independent persons.
    The person who kills is responsible for their actions. If they kill a person who is no physical lethal threat to them they are committing an unjustifiable killing and an unjustifiable killing is murder.
    And who exactly decides when killing is permissable? Or are you still in thrall to the bible?

    I am not religious. I am an atheist.

    Objective morality exists independently of religion.

    Morality is not a supernatural concept.

    It exists in all times and all places.


  • #178
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    This issue is black and white.
    It's murder.

    That's like ... just your subjective opinion, man.

    See, I can play that game too.


  • #179
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Morality is not a supernatural concept.

    It exists in all times and all places.

    Do please lay out "morality" then.


  • #180
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm asking you since you clearly haven't.

    You don't believe in objective morality? I think I have amply refuted every argument put forward of so-called mercy killing.

    Fine. Declare me wrong and declare victory.

    I hope it makes you feel better.

    My arguments and my morality are still superior to yours no matter what you say.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Nodin wrote: »
    Do please lay out "morality" then.

    You have access to objective morality on your own.

    I don't need to lay it out for you.

    You know already what is right and what is wrong.


  • #182
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    swampgas wrote: »
    That's like ... just your subjective opinion, man.

    See, I can play that game too.

    My opinion is not subjective.

    Logic and reason and morality are objective.


  • #183
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,580 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    My opinion is not subjective.

    Logic and reason and morality are objective.


    Hahahahahahahha, *sniff*, hahahahaha, *wipes tear from eye, goes to bed*.


  • #184
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    You have access to objective morality on your own.

    I don't need to lay it out for you.

    No, I don't, so yes, you do......


  • #185
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    My arguments and my morality are still superior to yours [...]
    With interest, I await any sign you've developed either.


  • #186
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Balaclava1991 do NOT post in this thread again.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Also, folks for what it's worth. One big philosophical question is whether objective morality exists. If independent of humans there actually were moral laws. A similar question is asked for mathematics. Do morals/maths exist or do we invent them? :)


  • #188
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jernal wrote: »
    Also, folks for what it's worth. One big philosophical question is whether objective morality exists. If independent of humans there actually were moral laws. A similar question is asked for mathematics. Do morals/maths exist or do we invent them? :)


    Morals we invent. Maths is an attempt to quantify using numbers, which we invented, but describes effects and states we may not have.


Advertisement