The rejection of euthanasia is illogical
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Ok 'evidence' then. Point noted. Thanks.
What's happened to the discussion? Are we still on euthanasia or what Norse thinks about logic and humanity. We seem to have gone off to something else. Transhumanism maybe?:shrug:
What's happened to the discussion? Are we still on euthanasia or what Norse thinks about logic and humanity. We seem to have gone off to something else. Transhumanism maybe?:shrug:
^ time to talk about cyborgs I presume?
Ok 'evidence' then. Point noted. Thanks.
What's happened to the discussion? Are we still on euthanasia or what Norse thinks about logic and humanity. We seem to have gone off to something else. Transhumanism maybe?:shrug:
Norse doesn't think about logic and humanity, though, because he doesn't have the first clue as to what either of them actually mean. He's never studied either subject once in his life, so all he's going on are his very limited observations and random musings.
That's why he's running into so much resistence. He's wrong, and he won't admit it. He's having perfectly sound explanations provided to him, and yet he ignores them. My observation is that he's simply not smart enough to understand it all.
A good description of yourself.
I love it!
If your opinion is in the minority then = wrong. If there's resistance to your opinion, it's wrong.
No, what I've had so far is explanations based in emotion. You have yet to use a logical argument for sustaining the unhealthy
My observation of you is that you aren't smart enough to understand concepts like "opinion", "emotion", "fact", "truth", "logic" and "rationale"
Just had a thought.....
For all of y'all who believe that we should keep all of the mentally and physically disabled humans, caring for them, spending tons of money on them, ....if it's such a great idea for the human animal, why not do the same for all the animals? Beef cows, milk cows, dogs, cats, pigs, chickens, ...., etc.?
I realize humans are a little different to most of the other animals, but let's face it ...if it's good for the human animals, how can it not be good for the other animals? So let's have ranchers and farmers keep all the defective birthed animals, spend time and money on those animals, and let them breed within the herds.
Baron Max
For all of y'all who believe that we should keep all of the mentally and physically disabled humans, caring for them, spending tons of money on them, ....if it's such a great idea for the human animal, why not do the same for all the animals? Beef cows, milk cows, dogs, cats, pigs, chickens, ...., etc.?
I realize humans are a little different to most of the other animals, but let's face it ...if it's good for the human animals, how can it not be good for the other animals? So let's have ranchers and farmers keep all the defective birthed animals, spend time and money on those animals, and let them breed within the herds.
Baron Max
Your emotional outbursts do nothing for the discussion ...and most certainly proves Norsefire's point.
If keeping all those defective human animals is good practice, why not suggest doing it for all of the other animals ...zoos, farms, ranches, etc?
Baron Max
not your first, I assume.
But it {your thought} seems a little confused for the Baron. I expected you to say the reverse.* I.e. treat the old and useless, the mentally ill, etc. like animals.
I am investing in Soylent Green corp. Eventually humanity will want their solution to the useless population and food problems.
------------
*What happen to the good old Baron I came to love? You have been inactive for a while. Did a stroke change you into a BHL (bleeding heart liberal)? The Baron I remember thought that BHL was a nearly incurable disease.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Oh don't wined him up, he's actually on bloody topic and not simply calling us all 'hippo critters'
This really is funny coming from you, Norse. You've had it explained to you why morality is more than simply subjective opinions, but you reject them for no reason other than the fact that they do not agree with your current opinon.
And I'm afraid that you are unaware what an opinion is, Norse. Or at least what an opinion is worth. You believe that yours should not be questioned despite the fact that you quesiton everyone else's. You also believe that when your opinion runs counter to all evidence that supports an opposing opinion, that your opinion is still valid and, more importantly, above reproach.
You have an unwavering belief that you are right--and even profound--in your thinking, and have displayed an unwillingness to even pay attention when someone provides you an argument to the contrary. So the question then becomes: Why are you here? If your sole intention is to spout off about things you 1) aren't educated in, and 2) don't have any interest in educating yourself in, why not start a fucking blog? That way we wouldn't have to deal with your rambling nonsense here.
Baron Max said:
There are fundamental flaws with your post, Baron. As usual.
The first one is "those who think we should keep all children" as if we're debating before a vote. Also, it's a false premise. No one is saying we should keep all the children despite their handicaps. That's not a position anyone is taking. All anyone has contested is the idea that it's best if we do away with all of them. It should always be up to the potential parent, not the state.
The second fundamental flaw is your assertion that if we do it for children then we should do it for animals. That makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot compare our laws and practices in regards to human children with our laws and practices in regards to animals. You're talking about human children whose human parents have an instinctual bond to them. There is a huge difference.
Baron Max said:
Well, nobody's having an emotional outburst, so I don't know where you get that idea from. And the fact that you, of all people, would question someone else's contributions to a discussion is downright laughable. Irony at its finest. John Cleese would be proud.
Hopefully the explanation above provided enough insight to you that you might correct your fatally-flawed thinking, but if not, let's give it another go.
I don't think anyone here is advocating making abortion illegal, nor that pregnancies shouldn't ever be aborted when it is discovered that the child is at high risk for something like Down's Syndrome. All anyone here, at least as far as I can see, is saying is that it should never be mandatory, and it should remain the choice of the parent. And people are free to voice their disgust with the idea of abortion.
Also, once again, the comparison between human children and animals is ridiculous. It doesn't work.
People find their own meaning and purpose in life. Those with severe disabilities may fear death more than pain. It's easy to say that you'd take the injection whilst sitting at your computer, healthy and able. However, our instinctual will to survive cannot be underestimated. I honestly don't know which fate I would choose. Although you're right, people should have the choice, and those that have taken such pains to commit euthanasia ((e.g.)Dan James) make a powerful case for it.
However, I disagree that it's purely our concepts of good and evil that dictate the outcome of ethical decisions. It's also the general sense of fair play that acts within a species as a protective mechanism. We instinctively abhor cruelty just as slaughterhouse pigs squeal wildly when they see other pigs being killed. It's a selfish anxiety, triggered by the fact that there's a likelihood we could end up in the same situation. A pretty logical fear if you ask me...
Have you seen this? Or are you just supposing? If you have, where and how were the pigs killed?
In my youth I watched two pigs killed on a farm. First had two hooks pushed between the bone and the Achilles tendon of each hind leg and then pig was then strung up with head over a wash tub that caught the blood when his throat was cut. Honestly I do not recall well what the other pig was doing. Certainly there was a lot of squealing by the inverted pig, until his throat was cut. My attention was on him.
Pigs may be smarter than dogs, but dog do not even exhibit fear when another is killed. A quasi-controlled experiment, impossible to repeat now days without a lot of trouble from the SPCA etc. was done as follows:
More than a dozen pound dogs were to be killed so not fed that day. Instead, they were tied to stakes by very short leash and equally space around a circle. The man in charge of pound, who normally fed them, took position at center of the circle, walked straight to one dog, which wagged it tail as he approached, probably hopping for some food but got a forceful blow to the head by a club instead. Then the man returned to the center of the circle and repeated this for the next dog, which also wagged it tail as he approached. This continued all the way around the circle and even the last dog wagged its tail as the man approached. I guess "hope springs eternal" in the hearts of dogs also.
I do not doubt that in a pig slaughter house there is a lot of squealing but do doubt it is because pigs are worried about dying.
There is a cartoon with cows lined up to enter the slaughter house, and one cow is cutting in front of some others, which say to it: "Wait your turn - no butting into the line." I think that is more likely true.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Cellar Door:
Of course but that has noting to do with the question does it? Its not a logical reason to sustain the group. But my assertion has been twofold; with the living there should be a choice of whether they wish to live in that state or not and mothers have been for a long time now practicing eugenics by aborting babies they know to have some disorder or disability in utero.
No its not easy to say this while sitting at my computer, I know I would never wish to choose a life of disability and physical dependence, it goes against everything I believe a quality of life to be and I know enough about myself to say quality is more important than longevity.
Fair play? Abhor cruelty? What you mean when ordinary citizens of Rwanda picked up machete's and butchered their neighbors? Or when righteous christians used to burn people at the stake? Or how about Americans dropping bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki not to mention the process of agent orange which would burn through the skin of the vietnamese? What about the soldiers in the tanks that rolled over the live bodies of students at Tiananmen? History is full of examples that as a species we care nothing for fair play nor have an abhorrence for cruelty. Norse's hypothetical situation of a pain less death is much more humane than anything man tends to periodically do. We do not think to ourselves when we choose the death chamber for some criminal or engage in warfare 'Oh what if it were me' we just do not do this, that's not a part of the 'logical process' that goes on with human beings. Look at how people treat the homeless for example, most people turn away or walk right by, they're not struck with 'but for the grace of god there go I'. Its a pleasant way of looking at humanity but it just ain't true.
Of course but that has noting to do with the question does it? Its not a logical reason to sustain the group. But my assertion has been twofold; with the living there should be a choice of whether they wish to live in that state or not and mothers have been for a long time now practicing eugenics by aborting babies they know to have some disorder or disability in utero.
No its not easy to say this while sitting at my computer, I know I would never wish to choose a life of disability and physical dependence, it goes against everything I believe a quality of life to be and I know enough about myself to say quality is more important than longevity.
Fair play? Abhor cruelty? What you mean when ordinary citizens of Rwanda picked up machete's and butchered their neighbors? Or when righteous christians used to burn people at the stake? Or how about Americans dropping bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki not to mention the process of agent orange which would burn through the skin of the vietnamese? What about the soldiers in the tanks that rolled over the live bodies of students at Tiananmen? History is full of examples that as a species we care nothing for fair play nor have an abhorrence for cruelty. Norse's hypothetical situation of a pain less death is much more humane than anything man tends to periodically do. We do not think to ourselves when we choose the death chamber for some criminal or engage in warfare 'Oh what if it were me' we just do not do this, that's not a part of the 'logical process' that goes on with human beings. Look at how people treat the homeless for example, most people turn away or walk right by, they're not struck with 'but for the grace of god there go I'. Its a pleasant way of looking at humanity but it just ain't true.
I've already agreed that there are underlying influences, psychologically, on what we find moral and immoral, however you have yet to demonstrate how morality is actually objective in the context that there is only one single true moral code.
Even if morality is influenced by our human psychology, there are various problems:
1) Interpretation; we might find theft wrong, for example, but might disagree on what qualifies as theft. Same goes for murder. We all find murder wrong. However some people think capital punishment is murder, whereas others like me think it is Justice.
2) We can ignore our own instinct. Or we can altogether formulate our own moral code dependent on various factors, and it isn't any more "wrong" than anything else
Morality is subjective. There might be influences to it, but it's nonetheless open to interpretation and opinion and you have not demonstrated otherwise.
Nope.
Of course I pay attention, that's why I respond
Again speak for yourself and not for others. I must ask why you are here, at least here talking to me, if you do nothing but spew insults; grow up. You're not Einstein or Socrates. You're not a genius and no better than any of the rest of us.
Sure I have. Certain actions have always been considered crimes in society. Murder and theft are two that I can think of right off the top of my head. People may reason themselves through why killing is alright, but murder--that is, the act of taking a life without cause--has always been morally wrong. That is a fundamental truth to humanity. Anything that threatens the existence of the race in any measurable way is considered immoral.
That does not make theft and murder being immoral untrue. And the definition never changes; murder is the taking of a life without cause, and theft is stealing from your fellow man. The beauty is that we can use reason to get around it, and we can outright ignore it if we like, but there's never a time when murder or theft is acceptable in society.
Again, no it isn't. I've just explained to you for the umpteenth time that it isn't.
I'm sure you can tell that someone has replied. But you make no effort to understand what has been written.
I'm not speaking for others. They've already said it. I'm just repeating it. What am I, blind? I can see that nobody here thinks you're anything more than a kook.
And the assertion that I "do nothing but spew insults" further proves my point that you're not paying attention. I've done so much more than that. I've tried in every way to make you understand, but you wont' pay any mind.
And yes, I am much, much better than you. I accept my humanity, and I understand it as best I can. You, on the other hand, pretend to be an intellectual elite, and try to play way above your station. You also, for whatever reason, imagine yourself as a posthuman something-or-other. It's pathetic. Are you 12? Grow up.
Certain colors might always have been considered "most beautiful" in society.
Point? All you are saying is that there are certain tendencies and patterns to human morality, not that morality is objective
Murder is the wrongful taking of a life
Considered........which means considered by a majority, which means it's subjective.
Also, it's still open to interpretation; I mean, what threatens the existence of the race? Does freedom threaten the existence of the race?
Did what Hitler did threaten the existence of the race? Not to him; it was a justified killing in the name of a better German society.
Those are the worst definitions I've ever seen; theft is stealing? Really?
True, because if it was acceptable it wouldn't be murder
I disagree. Although I'm not interested in "who's most popular"
And the only people to verbally voice such an opinion are you, and a few other idiots in my various threads. That's hardly everybody.
Of course I pay you mind; although you have yet to prove anything you say. I don't have to, because I'm not claiming it to be a fact.
I disagree on both counts. I am far superior to you, first of all.
Second of all, it is I that sees humanity as it is: an emotional species with culture and tradition and social interaction, not "paragons of light" like you do. Humans have both a level of barbarity and civility, and I see and accept this
Are you an idiot? I support transhumanism; I don't "imagine" myself as a posthuman, idiot. I never said I was posthuman. I said I support the transhuman goal
Probably true, at least if they have a name for more than one color (some have only a name for what we call "red." Many have only a few named colors, but a word for red is one of them always.) The "most beautiful" color is not the same, I suspect. For example, in China red is lucky and desirable, but in US it tends to indicate fear and danger.
Norse said:
Totally false premise. You continue to just make things up as you go along. I can picture you before you post: "Oh, I don't have an answer for this...well, I'll just say whatever pops into my head!"
That would be evidence for objectivity! Hello, McFly??
You clearly don't even know what "subjective" means, Norse. I could say that I think that diamonds are soft. Does that mean the hardness of diamonds is subjective? Of course not.
You're forgetting that humans have the gift of abstract thought. We can reason our way through things, and talk ourselves out of things.
But now we're not talking about the same thing. What a shock: You've changed the subject.
Just admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Of course you disagree. You can't admit that you're wrong. It's impossible for you, because in your warped little mind, you're a fucking android. But you are, once again, ignoring the facts. The posts are all around you. Nobody thinks your ideas are worth a red cents. And you know this. You're lying when you say that. You obviously know that everyone thinks you're a joke. Every time you post, 20 people tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.
You know what? I'm done with this. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a brick wall.
Welcome back to my ignore list.
Um. not quite totally false.
For example in Russian the word "krasny" means red AND beautiful, simply because at one time red was deemed to be the most beautiful colour.
(Er, subject to contrary data of course, that's what I was told by my Russian teacher).