Thought
on Suicide and Near Death
Experiences
I've
thought a lot about suicide and near death experiences. I'm not
saying I'm going to kill myself or anything. However, I've had a lot
of passive thoughts about "what's the point?". I see life
for what it is. We live, we procreate, we die. So the next gen can do
it again. What's my purpose or point? Why bother? What do I have to
live for? The near death experiences come in with me being curious
about after life. If I knew I'd be okay would I just go there, would
that change my mind about my purpose?
“i
always have had a curiosity and wonder...and sometimes even
desire...to see what's after life. im just not much of a gambler tho.
So i plan on enjoying what i got now as much as possible.” Marv
was curious.
"The
aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously,
drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware.", said Henry Miller.
Rachel
joined in:
“I
had thought about this, what is the purpose, during an extended
period of daily exhaustion. I felt like Sisyphus, condemned to
roll a boulder up a mountain, only to reach the top and have it roll
back down again. I was working at an awful job, the environment
there was toxic. I had time only for the 'have to do' list and
no time for the 'want to do' list.
I
was fortunate, I found a way to quit the job yet still pay most of my
living expenses; I became eligible to access my late husband's Social
Security benefits. With small odd jobs, I can live a quiet life
with my pets on my rural small farm, watching sunlight filter through
autumn leaves, seeing the excitement of the birds when I fill their
feeder in the winter, savor the scent of hyacinths in spring, and
bottle feed abandoned baby kittens during the summer so they can find
adoptive homes. Nothing is more heartwarming than watching tiny
kittens drink formula from a bottle, so content to be eating that
their tiny ears flap.
I
don't know of any life beyond this one, so I found a way to live the
life I do have by being aware of all the beauty around me, and trying
to minimize the ugly parts. It is still something I have to
consciously think about doing; life is always filled with trouble and
it can be hard to find something good.”
Gary
said: “The point to life, secularly speaking, is to be happy.
There's
plenty of opportunity between birth and death to achieve that and in
a way that causes no harm to others.
It
also has no need to involve offspring.
It
is not necessary for the individual to carry the weight of the world
on their shoulders.”
A
secular atheist said: “From a secular point of view, you would be
very right. Life becomes rather meaningless.
But
if you are open to the idea that there is meaning, and someone put us
here for a reason, then you can start searching for it.”
“Life
being just a fantasy-based prelude to something not coming is what
would make it actually meaningless.
Embracing
it and enjoying it while you have it is the only meaning not
concocted wholly out of nothing.”
Jack
Lupino joined in. He said, “But WHY do you think that so many
people are desperate to fabricate some kind of meaning out of whole
cloth? If life itself is enough of a 'blast' without having to
concoct some sort of bizarre narcissistic fantasy regarding the
ultimate significance of their existence, then why do the lives of
the majority of the world's population revolve around these myths?
It's not as if people don't have access to the education required to
dispassionately reject these myths...but it seems that people feel
that they need them.”
He
continued, “I think about suicide constantly. I think that society
criminalises suicide or the assistance of suicide out of fear that
this will peel back the curtain and reveal the ultimate
meaninglessness and futility of life. So suicide is heavily
stigmatised, criminalised in many places, and even where it is not a
criminal offence, people do not have a legally protected right to do
it. I think that I'd be a lot more comfortable and content if I knew
that I had a legally guaranteed pathway to suicide in the event that
I should ever decide upon it. A prison becomes a home when you have
the key, as a wise person once said.
Anyway,
you have to just resign yourself to the fact that it's meaningless,
and that may make it easier. What kind of greater meaning or purpose
would you want
there
to be anyway?”
Terrapin,
his friend, asked him, “Do you not enjoy anything? If you do
enjoy things, why not just concentrate on the stuff you enjoy?
If
you don't enjoy anything, you probably have depression a la a
(‘chemical imbalance’) and you can be treated for it.”
Jack
responded, “Yeah, my dad has Major Depressive Disorder. He couldn't
hold down a job, slept all the time, weight fluctuated. He'd quit a
job thinking it was the root of his unhappiness etc... Then in his
mid-30s he started seeking a psychiatrist's help, started an
antidepressant and he's like his old self. He's had the same job for
over 20 years now, active, happy, etc..
I
know that's what I have, but I don't want to take meds. I know that
sounds crazy, but sometimes I enjoy the depression, other times it's
too much.”
Terrapin
said, “If you seek treatment but you sometimes enjoy the
depression, you could simply go off your meds sometimes. Then
when it's too much, go back on them.”
“Indoctrination.
Both of the father figure type and that there has to be
ultimate reasons beyond your own for everything. The religious
drive for the perfection of eternity of one form or another.
Facing
mortality. Many people are tempted to grasp at all sorts of
irrationalities when it sinks in that they and their loved ones won't
live forever.”
“Even
a lot of people who were raised non religious eventually embrace some
kind of theistic religion which gives their life the 'meaning' that
they feel that it has been lacking. It's not always a case of people
being born into religion (although it usually is). Religion is
obviously some kind of salve to put on an existential wound (perhaps
being that at some level, people do have some kind of existential
dread of the futility of life).
Facing
mortality is possibly the main one, and people don't only grasp at
irrationalities for their own consolation, but also grasp for
irrational justifications to curtail the bodily autonomy of other
people in order to validate the value of life.”
They
argued.
“Well,
some morbidly depressed people field crassly dishonest and/or
deranged definitions of "bodily autonomy" among other
concepts and fervently wish to bring everyone down to their own state
of perpetual misery.”, said Mary.
Their
christian friend Erjen joined in, “There might be a purpose or a
point that you are unaware of at present. Okay, maybe that's
not much, but it's something, and something is better than nothing,
yes?”
“My
son is 7. I want to raise him. After that, I'll be 42. I'll go from
there. He will be 18 when I'm 42.”, Arnold said.
Atheist
Jack surmised, “Evolution. All of my ancestors had four traits:
The
will to survive to the age at which they could procreate
The
ability to survive to the age at which they could procreate
The
will to procreate
The
ability to procreate
Anyone
who failed to have all four of the above factors would not pass on
those traits to their non-existent offspring.
In
other words, we survive because it is in our DNA.”
Rorshack
said, “This, and your other one on suicide, are honest posts.
If
all the billions upon billions of people throughout history who have
had some sort of religious faith have been completely wrong about
everything, and given how much this faith has shaped
civilization....it really would make the entire human species one of
the most preposterously deluded, laughable collections of bacteria to
ever exist. No other species that I can think of bases so much of its
existence on (what would be in this scenario) a total delusion.
It
is not at all narcissistic to want a possibility of heaven, if your
focus is on other people and not just yourself, however. But without
that possibility, yes, life becomes not just meaningless, but if we
are completely honest, a nightmarish dark hole of misery for the
majority of mankind. Suicide becomes a rather logical consideration
in the face of such darkness.
I
hope that is not the true reality, I have faith most days that it is
not, but if it is, then this is the honest, no-BS reflection of it.”
“I
don't think that the desire for heaven is itself necessarily
narcissistic, but merely the 'I'm so special' idea that a creator set
up the entire universe just for humans and God pays special care and
attention to the life of one peon, and also the idea that humans are
what God specially crafted in his image as the pinnacle of his entire
creation.”, said pessimistic John.
“Bodily
autonomy means the right to do with my body what I please; enlisting
the assistance of willing third party participants if deemed
necessary. Nothing dishonest or deranged about that definition.
And
I want people to have the right to escape the trap of perpetual
misery; thereby decreasing the overall level of misery in the world.
But since people like you can only care about your own suffering, yes
I would like to see how you would like the cage in which you advocate
to keep others entrapped.”
“You
can enlist whoever you want to. They, however cannot assist the
deranged in harming themselves. They have no such "bodily
autonomy" to do what they wish to others regardless of the
personal and societal harms.
And
since people like you are straight-up maniacal psychopaths that among
other things think that ending all human life is an answer for their
own personal narcissism and cowardice, I'm not too worried what
you're morbidly irrational-self gushes crazy about it.
No
cage for the vast vast majority; children accidentally escape the
cage playing easy games with one of our fragilities.”, said
Ragnoshock the offensive.
“And
that restriction exists based on an arbitrary moral code that bears
striking parallels to the Judeo-Christian bioethic, as well as the
prejudice that anyone who wishes to prematurely terminate their
existence (and who doesn't have a terminal illness) is "deranged".
If
the person requesting the assistance says that they are doing it in
order to spare themselves from future harm, then what is the basis to
say that death (harm only in the sense of physically stopping
biological functions) is a greater harm than a probable lifetime of
constant harm?
And
you have stated that even if someone had absolutely no way of
completing suicide themselves, but had several decades of further
suffering, you would want to deny them any right to assistance to die
because you have 'empathy' (because you've apparently thought through
what it would be like to be paralysed for 90 years with no escape,
and have decided that there's absolutely no rational reason that such
an existence would not be desirable or that this individual would not
be worthy of having their choice respected if they felt otherwise).”,
said Michael Stern.
Ragnoshock
the offensive responded, “Nah, that's just more of your own
derangement. And you reiterating that you have no regard for
the quality of your word. I've outlined numerous times how you
specifically
are
deranged. As in believing "actual" choice
doesn't exist yet you must choose to work hard to get others to
choose to change. And repeatedly fielding nappycrappy
dungeon-like conditions in third-world country asylums (seriously,
how many times will you need to regale with poop?) as evidence, not
for proper care, but for the need to help them kill themselves. You
howling like a baby at criticism of your inanities and in the same
breath crapping alt-right slogans about ("safe spaces") and
("triggered"). You seriously maintaining that
saying someone is bats!t crazy for the batsh!t posts they make is the
same as calling them the n-word (which you love to toss out raw, in
it's full glory). Your hilariously daft pained paroxysms
on ("word salad"s), ("double-negative"s), and the
aforementioned n-words, poopdiapers, etc. Your rocketing
between being so fanatical about procreation that you were dedicating
sappy '70s pop tunes to it straightaway to the opposite wack of
hating it so much that that you want to eliminate it and the human
race. And the dripping wails. Dear god, the wails.
And
of course your laughably inane religious projection. You revere
it so much that you think valuation of life and helping people
through problems vs. ending their problems by ending them has to have
some Christian origin.
So
many are from temporary and/or treatable crises. And your
("probable
lifetime of constant harm")
is just your ongoing bloodripping Eeyore pitiful crazy.”
“I've
said there are extreme edge cases, and those might require some
creative thinking, but that in no way sanely leads to your suicide
pills at the drugstore nor even the ("treating") of the
mentally ill by fast-tracking their crisis or illness. And any
of competent mind in any body state can refuse nourishment and be
assisted with efforts intended to palliate.
As
said before, many paralyzed make good lives. Hawking seems to
have had a blast. What we do is help and palliate as much as is
possible. Not go with the unhinged who want to end the world.”
John
the depressed said, “Well, you never even hinted at what category
such a mental illness would fall into. And in calling me 'deranged',
you are mocking all people who have the misfortune to be suffering
with a mental illness; in much the way that a white person saying
"nigger" (no reason why the word would need to be given
such power that it cannot be spelled out) would be mocking all black
people.
Saying
that life has to be preserved at any cost derives from the humanist
tradition within Christianity. Not all historical cultures have had
such a problem with the right to die; for example in ancient Greece,
people had the right to die. The prohibition against suicide was
introduced by the Catholic Church in order to clamp down on suicide
cults. It's also mainly religious lobbies, and disabled 'rights'
groups (often linked to religious groups) which vehemently oppose the
right to die. If you're going to deny people the right to decide what
happens to their life, but without being able to tell them what the
negative effects (FOR THEM, not for society) of being dead will be,
then you can only resort to some kind of metaphysical mysticism about
the sanctity of life. According people the right to die does not
devalue life, but to refuse this right is to devalue the personal
experiences of a segment of the population.”
He
continued, “And my suggestion has provisions to filter out those
who are undergoing temporary crises; whereas your callous suggestion
does absolutely nothing for those who are suffering in the long term.
Just 'try another treatment and maybe the 1159th course of medication
you try will be the one that finally works, and if not maybe the
1160th treatment will be the one you've been waiting through several
decades of torture for'.”
“What
'creative thinking', when the very nature of the problem is that they
feel very unhappy to be unable to move out of their wheelchair and
feed themselves or go to the toilet? Oh right, they'll all turn out
to be genius physicists, and will feel contented and fulfilled by
their contributions to scientific research. Fun fact; all fully
paralysed people have an IQ of over 160 and are leaders in scientific
fields. And they all have exactly the same personality and outlook on
life, so it's unthinkable that any of them might find a life of
paralysis to be unsatisfying.
What
would you say to your own child if this happened to them? Given that,
at present, it is mere providence which separates one of your
children from the fate of someone who has been severely injured in a
car crash? Don't worry, you'll just turn out to be the next Stephen
Hawking, and if not, we'll find some 'creative solution' to make sure
that you enjoy spending the next 70 years being able to so much as
scratch your nose or use a toilet. And if not, you can always starve
yourself to death (if you can win the years long court case to allow
you to refuse to be force fed).”, he finished.
Ragnoshock
the offensive said, “The category of batsh!t crazy, supported by
all of the wild hypocritical irrationalities and angst-filled
supervillain psychopathies detailed, some in the most recent post.
I'm happy to note people who act as if they are insane on
internet boards; the fact that you try to equate it with racist
epithets that have no logical much less valid use just highlights
both your crazy and your contempt for what you're wont to call the
("fuzzy brown people"). What behavior at all do you
contemplate might warrant calling someone the word? There was
no legitimate reason for the it to have been fielded in the
conversation at all, much less be giddily employed by you to try to
claw some cover for the freakish content of your drivel?”
“Them
and you, as it's not with me. Not only do you have a right to
die, it's practically impossible to stop you as long as you're not
visibly deranged or acting out in a scene. No matter how
hard you try you can't convert facilitating others killing themselves
to choosing suicide for yourself. So, of course, another
paragraph of hysterical bullsh!t.
You've
believed the religious crap; you've also been a rabid pro-procreation
nut. In your latest swing you're just looking for another kind
of eternity. Everything in crazy crazy extremes. You're
born to Believe.”
“Not
only did you say you wanted it available in drugstores, but in answer
to the fact that many more would end up perishing that otherwise
would have recovered you protested that who are we to override what
they want at the time and once they were in your preferred state they
couldn't care anyway. And I know, life is nothing but pain. So
many decades of torture left for you to moan through.”
“They
can refuse nutrition with palliation. But what you're
describing is an effectively terminal state, and could likely be
presented as that.
Fun
fact. The rational don't use the most extreme to ignore grave
effects on the the bulk of the population.”
“I've
been there when loved ones died after desisting nutrition. What
sucks is getting to that point, not the final process. Taking a
whole bunch of people with you just isn't and never will be supported
by you coming up with the most extreme, irrational, and slanted
examples framed in the most shrilly exaggerated way you can weepily
gnash out.”
The
depressed guy said, “might warrant stigmatising people with mental
illness and using a disparaging epithet which is commonly used to
degrade the mentally ill? It's the same situation as with using
epithets about black people, just not as fashionable an issue. Of
course, I do not believe in giving words that power. I also don't
believe in infantilizing entire groups of people by indulging them in
feeling victimised by name calling. The whole point of the 'fuzzy
brown people' rhetoric is to mock people who view racism as being a
high priority political issue because they want to be perceived as a
virtuous agent of change. And how they would ridicule the appearance
of a white person that they don't like, but would never insult the
appearance of a black person . But there's far more important issues
than racism. It's more important to tackle the poverty which blights
the black community than censuring people who use a particular
epithet to insult black people. Making a tangible difference in the
lives of people is more important than superficial indulgences such
as bleeping out epithets when quoting from a source on the Internet.
And
I would say the same thing about my own group (homosexuals). Whilst
there's no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be legal, it should be
treated as a very low priority issue, and as a homosexual myself I do
not need people to protect me from being called a faggot. Someone's
race or sexuality doesn't mean that they are fragile and need to be
held to a lower standard than everyone else.
In
what sense is something a right if there is absolutely no legal
protection for it? Are you someone who believes that 'rights' exist
intrinsically in nature? In what sense is suicide a right, if it is
in no way legally protected and in many ways legally proscribed?
Being able to do something is not the same as having a right to do
that thing, if there are measures in place which restrict you from
doing that thing.
And
I was a 'pro procreation nut' because I thought that actual family
life was like the utopian visions that were depicted in American
movies and sitcoms (the opiate of the people, much like religion);
the forms of entertainment that people need to consume in order to
distract them from how dissatisfying real life tends to be. I didn't
swing immediately to the opposite extreme, I got there gradually
through an irresistible process of reasoning.
To
clarify; I would have no personal problem if suicide drugs were to be
made available at the first point of contact. However, what I offered
was a reasonable compromise which addressed the objections that you
had (i.e. that people would be acting on impulse and might have
readily gotten better had they sought psychiatric help). Such a
programme would most certainly save the lives of some who would
otherwise commit suicide rashly in a fit of pique, but you have
ignored that. It would also ensure that the vast majority of those
who did go on to receive suicide would be the ones with objectively
the bleakest prospects of improvement. But what you really seem to
believe is that life is precious and sacred, and that there is no
cost of suffering which is too high to justify preserving every human
life for as long as is practically viable.
So
you think that starving to death is a decent way to go, and it would
not cause additional pain to the loved ones having to watch the
patient slowly waste away, rather than having a firm date when they
would be able to say 'goodbye' and actually be with the patient to
provide love and support at the time of death? And as far as I know,
anywhere where the law is 'terminal illness only', such a case would
not be eligible for the right to die, because they aren't actually
dying from their condition; much less within 6 months.
It
doesn't 'suck' to watch a loved one slowly waste away? I remember my
grandmother refusing nutrition before she died, and she looked like
she was a zombie out of a horror film by the end. I had just come
back from several months out of the country, and it was very
startling to see what had become of her. Not a nice way to remember
her.
And
the most humane and rational approach would be to start with the
assumption that the individual has full rights to their body as long
as they aren't encroaching on the rights of others. From that basis,
only when there are exceptionally compelling reasons to restrict
freedom should we allow this to be curtailed in certain instances.
The fact that many people requesting the right to die may have a
serious mental illness should not be grounds for a blanket ban on the
right to die (you haven't shown me how my desire to die is in any way
the product of unsound reasoning, for example), nor should it even
exclude the mentally ill unless we can prove categorically that they
would be worse off (by THEIR standards, not yours) by having access
to that service than without access. ”
The
offensive devil didn’t deter from his devilry. He said, “Like
I've said, another sign of the derangement. The total inability
to weigh sanely. The fact that you persist in trying to carry
that calling someone crazy/deranged/demented/supervillain
psychopathic based on the nutbag content of their posts is the same
as calling someone the n-word on the basis of - what? - just
highlights one bit of your batsh!tness.
And
following a theme, you again freely show your fullofsh!tness. I
get you live off your "I bet"'s as facts but you'd lose
your money in less time than the duration of one of your infrequent
pauses in weeping. I ridiculed Vegas' picture after he was
calling me fat, basement dwelling, whatever, and others similar. I'd
do the same with anyone much less ugly, whatever they were, who was
going on about others' appearances. Probably couldn't with you,
as the distressed tears of headhacked goths double as potent beauty
salves and I just can't call gorgeous ugly.
It's
scary to know that there are people out there actually too fried to
know the difference in returning insults about appearance as opposed
to hurling racial epithets under any circumstance.
You
really are like a right-radio pull-string doll. You'll probably
be listing Christians getting killed in Iraq as evidence for not
worrying about things happening elsewhere, because only one thing can
be criticized at a time. But you do scalded yelp at having your
crazy pointed out - just like homicide! The whole thing about
the "fuzzy brown" was you yapping alt-right at people
objecting to the wholesale tarring of a large group by the actions of
some in the group while ignoring the assh!le actors and actions
within their own groups, or even their own actions and support.”
“It's
like you can't rub two thoughts together. I don't care what you can
or can't take, a positively laughable concept in any case given your
constant mewling. I personally don't want to live in a place where
assh!les can refuse customers or stop people from getting married for
no good reason. As far as straight-up name calling, that's not
illegal (here), and generally paid for socially if the names were
unwarranted. You freely use racial epithets that says something about
you and nobody else. If I note that someone writing
deranged posts is deranged that says something about me and the
wack-job I'm saying it about, if it's backed up cogently.”
Rachel
joined in the conversation. She said, “For the record, I agree with
you. I think it is inhumane to deny someone the right to end
their own life, or be assisted in doing so.
What
we routinely do for our beloved pets is to humanely and painlessly
end their suffering. The veterinarian tells us that Fido has
only a few weeks left and will be in constant pain, and we sign the
paper to euthanize Fido. The pets that I have had euthanized go
to sleep peacefully in my arms, and never wake up. It rips my
heart out to lose them, but I will not allow them to suffer
needlessly.
My
veterinarian and I have known each other for nearly forty years, and
he has Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care for me. He
knows I do not want my life extended if there is no chance of a
meaningful recovery and nothing is left but pain. He cannot
euthanize me, but he can ensure that my life will not be prolonged
artificially. I wish he could euthanize me if he deemed it
appropriate. He and I have seen too much of long, painful
deaths; my husband's, his mother's, and animals whose owners just
can't make the decision to let a well-loved pet die painlessly,
before days of suffering. I have been through treatment for cancer,
and if it recurs and no treatment will hold it at bay, I can and will
end my own life if I am physically able to do so.
I
love life, but death is inevitable. Why cannot each individual
make the choice of when and how to die?”. She was supporting the
depressed suicidal maniac.
Frank
Shiller joined in.
“Hi
Rachel, thanks for your response and support. I'm glad that you agree
with me, as you have always seemed very reasonable. A lot of people
who still think that they know what is best for someone else's
situation and think that their 'wisdom' should therefore override the
individual's right to make decisions for themselves...even if they
cannot explain how the person is going to be better off for having
their wishes dismissed. Even claimed that his desire to limit
people's right to end their suffering is derived from 'empathy'.
I
think that I respond to him because I'm bored and at a loose end
(although it's getting boring repeating the same things all the
time). When I say it, it doesn't tend to generate many responses
anyway. Also, that devil is attracted to my posts like a moth to a
flame. He has done this with several people, but I make a point of
never letting anyone get the better of me or harass me to the point
where I avoid them.”
The
devil didn’t stop, and responded immediately: “As pointed out,
it's unstoppable unless you are behaving in a deranged fashion. Not
being written down doesn't change that unassailable fact. Being
able to kill yourself most certainly is the same, as there is no
punishment for accomplishing it. Encouraging and facilitating
it is another thing altogether, of course. You have extreme views and
can veer radically to their polar distants. Never a sensible,
reasonable thought. All Babies! or horrible horrible pain
all must die. And reasoning HA! Like having no real
choice but you choose to furiously try to get others to choose. Or
how about moaning about ("not
given the opportunity to correct the distortion") ,
and ("much
less defend myself against the insults")
because somebody decided to stop
responding
to you. Pure cuckoo-land.
It's
objectively pure bull. As pointed out, the people who are
acting rashly in a deep crisis aren't thinking about going through
some program, the reality ignored by you. They are thinking of
ending the grief/guilt/whatever immediately.
What
I really think is that the state shouldn't be encouraging the
derangements of the mentally ill not capable of accomplishing
trivially easy once firmly decided upon tasks. It
shouldn't be shuttling those unable to process thoughts coherently to
their doom.
And
the devout belief that life everywhere is not worth any amount of
("suffering") anywhere is just you switching chant
denominations. They are bedridden and semi-conscious pretty quickly.
And if they aren't terminal, then the state has no business
making them so. And still, the rational of mind don't use
the most extreme to ignore grave effects on the the bulk of the
population. And you'll need to work your schedule, or not, for
your goodbyes. Wasn't really about you, or at least it shouldn't have
been. But with palliation it's not that different from a more
direct method. And if she was terminal then it is moot to the
subject. I've noted it countless times. Among numerous other
things, the actually
decided
physically capable not being able to accomplish the easily
accomplished task is another glaring sign. The fact that you
describe having someone do your trivial work for you as a ("blanket
ban on the right to die") is another. Also, you ciphering
from you wanting to die to the whole world should. ”
Rachel
ignored the devil and talked to the depressed John, “Sometimes I
wonder if there are people in this world that just can't carry on an
adult conversation and listen to logic and reason. Some seem
determined that it is their way or the highway, no one can think or
believe differently. Other people's' positions and opinions
about their own lives are not to be respected. I had hoped that
a discussion board like this would help people to understand other
people better, to live and let live, but I guess humans are just
naturally contentious.”
The
devil said, “Sure, Gamma's got the hip displasia, somebody get me
the shovel. You wish your veterinarian
could
euthanize you if he deemed it appropriate. Enlisting others is a more
complicated matter that might take a bit of thought.”
Falconia
the angel was sent by the Lord to intervene. She said, “If you had
strong evidence of an afterlife, let's say you had an out of body
experience, saw a blue trainer on your roof, then later you go up and
find it (same color same place), combined with other experiences,
would you do it? What about your son you mentioned? wouldn't you stay
around for him?”
John
the depressed saint continued responding to the Vegas Devil,
“Deranged is a word that stigmatises mental illness. And I have not
cried (not counting tears from eye irritation) in probably 8 years or
so. The last time I did cry (for emotional reasons), it was because
of the death of a cat I never ignored the evil that was being
perpetrated by other groups, I only made the point that an
equivalency was always being drawn between Muslims and Christians,
even though Muslims are much more religious (on average) and their
religion is causing more problems in the world at present. And even
when it is an atheist stating that Islam is worse, you call them a
Christian apologist.
For
the record, I have never called a black person "nigger",
and on balance, I usually find that I tend to prefer the company of
ethnic minority people to other white people (for whatever reason),
and I have a strong dating preference towards non-whites. I don't
like to see them infantalised by well meaning white people pretending
that racial slurs are a real problem. Sticks and stones, and all
that...
Also,
I have not cried (except for reasons of eye irritation) in about 8
years or more, and that was after the death of a cat. Before that, it
had also been several years since I'd last cried.
I
don't want that either; but what is far more alarming to me is that I
live in a place where people think that it's their place to contrive
laws to deny people the easiest possible access to suicide. That's a
position which generally terrifies me, unlike the position of the
toothless bigots who just want to carve out their silly
quasi-religious ceremony for heterosexuals only. Give me full
sovereignty over my body, then worry about the fripperies such as
silly antiquated ceremonies. The only thing that makes you even
slightly better than those people is that most anti-gay people are
also anti-suicide hardliners. People who actually wouldn't even have
pause for compassion if their own child was paralysed and the only
options were a life sentence of being unable to do anything for
themselves, or slowly starving to death.
So
are you saying that 'rights' are intrinsically woven into the nature
of the universe? Where would one go and what instruments would one
use in order to observe and verify the existence of a natural right?
And
if 'unstoppable' is the criteria of what determines a right, then I
have the 'right' to mug an old lady in the street, just as long as I
make sure that it's very unlikely I'll be caught. Imagine that you
fall victim to an online scam, which causes your bank account to be
emptied. The police tell you that the crime was so meticulously
planned, that they are unable to find any leads to catch the
perpetrators. Would you just shrug off the loss of the money as
"well, they haven't been caught and couldn't be stopped;
therefore they had a right
to
all of my money and who am I to begrudge them it?"
In
Britain, you can be detained indefinitely in a psychiatric ward
(where by law, all curtain rails must be of the collapsible variety
and all potential ligatures are to be confiscated from patients) if
you have been committed for a mental illness, and they think that on
the balance, you are likely to kill yourself if you are released.
There was a court case some time ago where the NHS was sued for
allowing a depressed woman out on weekend leave, who went on to kill
herself. Suicide is legal only on a technicality. But in every sense,
it is treated as a crime. Both the authorities and members of the
public can use force against you to prevent you from committing
suicide, even to the extent of causing physical injury. You can be
locked up without a trial for either a failed suicide attempt or if
it appears that you are about to attempt suicide. And of course,
nobody is allowed to assist you in this supposedly legal act, because
they are liable to be prosecuted for manslaughter otherwise. I cannot
explain any more clearly about how causality does not entail free
will. When liquid water reacts to heat and becomes steam, it is not
exercising 'free will' to change its state; it's changing because it
is being exposed to an external variable which is causing it to
change state. And if someone lied about something that you had
posted, then refused to address the lie, I doubt that you would
consider that to be fair game. Especially considering that you
continually respond to people, even when they aren't referencing you
in their postulates.
The
solution that I proposed would help to support people through the
crisis stage, and help them on the road to recovery and a productive
life. The status quo that you support deters people in crisis from
seeking any help because they know that they're liable to be
imprisoned against their will and deprived of their liberty for a
potentially unlimited amount of time. That and if they manage to get
out of the psychiatric ward, they're probably going to be constantly
regarded with suspicion and even surveillance by the people closest
to them with the threat of being imprisoned again at the drop of a
hat if someone thinks that they might be about to commit suicide.
And
you're assuming that all people, spare the terminally ill, are unable
to 'process thoughts coherently', which is prejudicial and denies
many rational people the right to suicide because of the afflictions
of others. I don't think that it was very pleasant for her either.
She was so emaciated and wasted away that she couldn't actually even
speak by the latter stages. It wasn't a terminal condition; she had
dementia and entered the hospital after she had had a fall.
Well
you're such a hardliner that you wouldn't even make an exception for
someone who was facing an immobile 80 years of psychological torture
confined to a chair and requiring a carer to do everything for you.
That or starve to death (if you can somehow manage to win the right
to prevent your relatives from force-feeding you). Even if it was
your own child who was paralysed for life and had been crying out for
the right to die for several years, you'd apparently not even give
pause to the idea that it would be humane and in their best interests
to allow them that right.”
The
devil didn’t stop there. He said, “Good lord, you just can't help
your derangement. Who replied to whom? I know, I know.
You respond to me, great stuff. I respond to you,
harassing! And you're the one who yaps on about safe spaces.
And that deranged narcissism of yours. Have you even a
little shame? Just more evidence for the cognitive shambles.”
This
blue eyed devil was vicious. He said, “Dumb is a real word that
stigmatizes dumb people. Flighty is a word that stigmatizes
flighty people. Unskilled is a word that stigmatizes people who are
unskilled with whatever something, or I don't know, with your
comically hypocritical safe-space rules, maybe all the unskilled at
anything at all. The n-word is a repulsive, illegitimate dive
to rank racism with no basis in legitimacy or even in reality.
Deranged
of course is another real word for a real form of thought process.
And your absurd over literalness with the reference to your
bawling is yet another bit of wtf evidence. You don't like it,
don't write posts that bathe in derangement.
What
you did was repeat your dross about having a fetish for fuzzy brown
people when objecting to the rank hypocrisy of people/posters,
including you with your own deeply embedded Judeo-Christian faith,
when these people posters try to coarsely paint entire classes of
people, and/or try to push that their ludicrous made-up immoral faith
in the raw is somehow superior to others' ludicrous made-up immoral
faiths in the raw.
Racial
slurs unchecked are always a real problem, regardless whether you
have none with powerful historical and even current-day significance
that can be used against you personally. And I know, you have
fuzzy brown friends and compare pointing out somebody's dementedness
to calling them the n-word. And which Asian non-whites do
you prefer to romance? Pakistanis? Where I live what's far more
alarming are the cranks who want committing suicide to be akin to
treating a headache. The "toothless bigots" are the
ones unabashedly trying try to place their preferred kooky religion
above other kooky religions and trying to brand wide swathes of "the
other" based on the actions of some, all the while ignoring
their own faith's bad actors and in fact their own reprehensible
actions. And it is a very simple mind that can only process one
issue at a time and constantly attempts diversion from others not his
obsession (gots
to have me state-sanctioned suicide pills, be damned if I care about
institutionalized second-classing of gays or racists spreading venom
without blowback).
The self-centered dismissal as silly of concern over
actual rights maliciously specifically excluded from particular
classes as they don't apply specifically to things you
particularly
want, fits hand in glove with the narcissistic psychopathy of
callously demanding from others what self-regard & cowardice
prevent one from doing himself, regardless of the costs to multitudes
of vulnerable. Because the dead former-vulnerable can't
care anymore, after all.
And
the mindless thinking that the more bizarre, "shocking" and
hysterically he can put things, the more headway he'll get with
people - even while forcefully asserting that no actual choice is
possible, with anybody. As opposed to the reality being
judged as a morbidly lugubrious overwrought nutcase.
And
what's truly freaky is people who consider it "hardline" to
not put their children down for being paralyzed, as opposed to
building them up so they have chances and a choices later on.”
John
the depressed saint was enraged. He said to the Ragnoshock devil from
Vegas, “I didn't 'howl' anything. You're the one who thinks that
some guy who criticised a Muslim through email ought to be legally
sanctioned for having the audacity to respond critically to the
latter's arguments.
You
know perfectly well that if someone lied about a comment you'd made
and declared that they'd won the argument based on that lie, that you
would probably not let the incident go unmentioned. I don't want a
'safe-space' from insults, but I'm not going to ignore it when people
lie about comments that I've made and declare that they've won the
argument. I don't condone going to the police when someone criticises
the opinions of a member of a 'protected group'.If it's acceptable to
use "deranged" as an insult against someone you believe to
be mentally ill, then it's OK to use "nigger" to insult
someone who might be offended by that word because they are
hyper-sensitive and their emotional maturity hasn't evolved since
primary school. The only purpose of using an insulting word is to
insult, and it needn't have anything to do with any theories about
racial inferiority. My point being is that the way to stop certain
words from being used is to stop sensitising people to those words
and giving them such power.
As
to my preference for Asians, it depends on the individual. Most
commonly Chinese, but sometimes Pakistanis.
I've
put forward a proposal, which you've rejected out of hand, which
would take into account your concerns about people acting
impulsively. Even though with my suggestion, only those who had
thought long and hard about the matter of suicide would be given the
treatment, you've still rejected it out of hand out of your
uncompromising commitment to the sanctity of life.
And
it should be up to your child whether or not they want to be
euthanised or not. You should not have the right to power of veto
over how they wish to exercise their bodily sovereignty. If your
child became paralysed and after 5 years was still relentlessly
miserable, and you still think that it should be illegal to assist
them in dying, then that would make you a torturer of your own child.
”
The
devil was merciless. Angels were crying. He responded, “The places
your crazy head goes. Rights are a human construct but you
don't have a right specifically delineated for everything you can do
that others can't practically control. You don't have a
specific codified right to hope for me to be put in a cage but you
have a practical one that you exercise, of course.
Explicitly
specified rights are based on treating our fellow man how we'd like
to be treated. No surprise you look for and interpret
ecclesiastical sources for everything.
It's
not. Just that some things are unstoppable and without
recourse, so it is silly to speak of rights regarding them. The
right to have others do your dirty work is a very different thing
indeed.
The
perps are still around to be found, at least their act of theft did
not make them stop existing. They could still be caught and
punished. I realize it's possible that you really are incapable
of distinguishing.
If
you are in a deranged state they need to take such precautions. If
you're not then it is straightforward to be released, and in fact no
reason to get detained in the first place.
Not
entailing and precluding are very different things,of course. And
your clarity on the matter has never been an issue; you have very
effectively communicated the patent irrationality of your position.
And
"water" that thinks that "actual" choice does not
exist, yet that it still can "choose" whether or not to
become steam or anything else and thinks it can "choose" to
convince other chemicals to not become steam, is deranged water. If
water had consciousness(es). And I most certainly would not
make batty statements of the like of "not given the opportunity"
and "much less defend myself", against "distortions"
and
insults
when
you are free (really!) to responses to your crushed little black
heart's content.
The
key derangement in this case is your assertion that actual choice
does not exist, yet you still choose to work ardently to get
other people to choose to see things in your morbid way. Without
a hint of a grasp of the irony.
”
John
said, “The thing that you are glibly ignoring here is that
the law provides for the ability of the emergency services, mental
health services and members of the public to aggressively curtail the
liberty to commit suicide, thereby treating it effectively the same
as a crime. If you are suicidal then you lose your right to liberty
and you lose your right not to be physically restrained by other
people. An action cannot be your 'right' if the government grants
others the power to aggressively prevent you from doing it in all
instances. It cannot be a right (in ANY sense) if you are imprisoned
against your wishes if you are even express a plan to carry it out.”
“And
if you fail at your suicide attempt, then you do continue to exist in
order to face the undignifying (and often dire) consequences of
harbouring a plan to commit suicide.”
“Why
must such precautions be taken if it is clear that all they plan to
do is to commit suicide? And why encode into law the a
priori
assumption
that any suicidal person is deranged and that the burden is upon them
to prove otherwise? Why does 'sane until proven insane' not apply in
the same way that 'innocent until proven guilty' is supposed to apply
in jurisprudence?
Logic
precludes the existence of free will. And the water will always do
just as it was predetermined to do, just as I will always do what I'm
predetermined to do. Being human does not mean the freedom to opt out
of what I'm predetermined to do (which is exactly my point). And I'm
not going to get anyone to freely choose anything. I'm either going
to be the cause of opinions to change, or my efforts will have
negligible contribution to establishing antinatalism within the meme
pool.”
Satan
said, “You howled like a bawling silly-baby. And your second
line is just more of your demented outright lying.”
“I
know perfectly well I'd do what sane people who aren't unhinged would
do, and reply. I certainly wouldn't howl on about not being
allowed to "defend" myself or make "corrections"
.
Regardless of how much you blow-stupid on about anybody
not wanting you to reply, it's still about you bawling derangement
like a hypocritical silly-baby over some other poster declining
to reply to you. _Nothing_
about whether you reply or not.
And
then followed up again in this debates with howls of "harassment".
I
breezed over the beauty of brilliance in line 3 the first time, as I
was gobsmacked by the unblushing screwy rank lie in line 2.
1)
You really want to maintain that it's the (patently false in this
case) only, or even the most likely way to see a particular quote?
2)
If somebody did do that, responding to an especially relevant quote
on a highly related meeting, that you actually consider that as
"harassment"?
And
you take "offense" that your highly hypocritical
oft-fielded "safe-space", as well as the
couldn't-be-more-accurate "demented" should be applied to
you? ”
John
was mellow. He said, “I'm not complaining that graham declined to
reply to me further. It's the fact that he created a strawman
argument based on a distortion and declared victory in the argument
on that basis, as well as the usual argument that the suffering of
the unfortunate is unimportant and only happy people matter.”
“I
didn't 'howl' anything. You're the one who thinks that some guy who
criticised a Muslim through email ought to be legally sanctioned for
having the audacity to respond critically to the latter's arguments.
And how would you have found my post had you not gone through my
profile?
You
howled like a bawling silly-baby. And your second line is just
more of your demented outright lying.
You
know perfectly well that if someone lied about a comment you'd made
and declared that they'd won the argument based on that lie, that you
would probably not let the incident go unmentioned. I don't want a
'safe-space' from insults, but I'm not going to ignore it when people
lie about comments that I've made and declare that they've won the
argument. I've never reported anyone on this board or on the RFS
forum on IMDb, and I don't condone going to the police when someone
criticises the opinions of a member of a 'protected group'.
I
know perfectly well I'd do what sane people who aren't unhinged would
do, and reply. I certainly wouldn't howl on about not being
allowed to "defend" myself or make "corrections"
.
Regardless of how much you blow-stupid on about anybody
not wanting you to reply, it's still about you bawling derangement
like a hypocritical silly-baby over some other poster declining
to reply to you. _Nothing_
about whether you reply or not.
And
then followed up again in this thread with howls of "harassment".
I'm
not complaining that graham declined to reply to me further. It's the
fact that he created a strawman argument based on a distortion and
declared victory in the argument on that basis, as well as the usual
argument that the suffering of the unfortunate is unimportant and
only happy people matter.
I
breezed over the beauty of brilliance in line 3 the first time, as I
was gobsmacked by the unblushing screwy rank lie in line 2.
"And
how would you have found my post had you not gone through my
profile?"
1)
You really want to maintain that it's the (patently false in this
case) only, or even the most likely way to see a particular post?
2)
If somebody did do that, responding to an especially relevant post on
a highly related board, that you actually consider that as
"harassment"?
And
you take "offense" that your highly hypocritical
oft-fielded "safe-space", as well as the
couldn't-be-more-accurate "demented" should be applied to
you?
Following
me is not the only explanation for your responding to that quote; but
certainly the most likely, given that you don't usually go on that
forum and hadn't responded to the other people on there. And no, it's
not harassment, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in the fact that
you defended the cowardly actions of the Muslim guy in reporting
someone to the police for sending him emails. To refresh your memory,
this is the case to which I'm referring:
And
with regards to 'safe space', this forum has an in-built 'safe space'
function, which I do not use. Therefore it cannot be alleged that I
am seeking a safe space. I don't object to being called "demented",
I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy for the fact that you have
condemned other people for name calling, even going so far as saving
the excerpts and quoting them for several months after the fact.”
The
devil was relentless: “As well they should, as in to assist those
temporarily or even permanently deranged, if they've shown mental
incompetence enough to not carry it out in private. If you are
suicidal but mentally sound then when you actually decide, if you've
made a scene then you can easily let the doctors know that you're
better, and be released.
Again,
an explicitly-specified "right" is redundant or even less
than coherent for something that can't practically be stopped. And
the state has a responsibility
to
help people when they are exhibiting mental instability.
Then
of course you weren't mentally capable to begin with. Re: the
sociopathic narcissism of suggestion that jumping in front of a train
might be an reasonable means of suicide save the personal
consequences in the failure of the assault.
Because
the mentally ill should be assisted in fighting their illness; not
have their illness encouraged. Any physically able suicidal
person is deranged or just narcissistically acting out etc., if they
feel the need to make it a public or discoverable-in-time affair.
It's prima facie evidence, and if in error then the
person can easily be released by simply refraining from deranged
behavior, depending upon how utter their contempt for others was in
planning their act.
Regardless
of the fact that such an assertion is both incredibly controversial
and highly contested, your mention of it is again beside the
point and completely bypasses your derangement. It's your
inability recognize that whatever
you
"pick" to do - lie in front of the Flying Scotsman, become
president of Morbid Anonymous, get hold the nuke codes, etc. - none
of that will make one whit of difference, and any
of
your continually-displayed effort, fervency, upset, complaints,
umbrages, bawlings, even wishes for harm on posters - is the very
definition of ironic futility. Once you "know" such a
fact, it is impossible to not skate above it all, or at the very
least be able to note the absurdity of such acts and feelings, _if_
you're at least a bit right in the head, again if right in the head
was even a thing in such a system.
The
derangement is not that you feel things, it's that coupled with what
you believe, you can't even recognize the comic irony of your
stances.
”
John
was stoic, “But the state does not have any evidence to suggest
that the person would regret the suicide should they complete it. And
if something is a 'right', then why must it be carried out in
private? It's only a 'right' in the same sense that homosexual
intercourse is a 'right' in Saudi Arabia. Usually if you're going to
force someone not to do something, you would be able to explain how
it would either a) cause someone else to be deprived of their rights;
or b) the individual themselves would likely regret the action for a
long time afterwards. And even reason b) is questionable. With a
well-planned suicide, there is no reason to believe that either a) or
b) can be supported, regardless of whether the individual announces
their intentions to anyone else ahead of time, or whether they are
unable to get the time alone in order to complete the suicide without
discovery.
If
someone has made certain preparations for a quick and painless death,
why should they not be able to go and visit their friends and loved
ones to say goodbye and explain that when they go home they are going
to administer themselves a medicine which will kill them peacefully
and painlessly? What would likely happen in that scenario (unless the
individual was blessed to have only friends and family members who
were extremely progressively minded and irreligious) is that someone
would alert the police, they would raid the person's home, remove the
Nembutal and take the person into custody. In what sense, then, does
the person have the 'right' to take the Nembutal. You're also
ignoring the many people who do not or cannot live independently and
therefore do not have enough time alone or the resources to complete
a suicide without being discovered in time.
Jumping
in front of a train is a scenario in which the suicide may traumatise
innocent people and inconvenience many more. The reason why people do
it anyway is because they do not have right of access to a means of
suicide which is painless, guaranteed and will not leave a gruesome
scene for someone else to have to clean up. It's people like you who
have so little regard for the suffering of others that desperate
people end up finding a way out which causes a great deal of
collateral damage in terms of psychological trauma to other people
and inconvenience to many. And yet you can't come up with one
tangible negative consequence of committing suicide for the
individual; you can only resort to gesturing towards abstract and
metaphysical reasons why people shouldn't be facilitated in doing so
(life is precious and therefore must be preserved by force, even at
the cost of terrible suffering).
Going
back to my first example of the individual with the well planned
Nembutal suicide, who wants to say goodbye to their friends and
family before they go. Explain how such an individual would be
exhibiting signs of 'derangement', if they wanted to make the suicide
less of a shock for the people closest to them, and try to explain to
those people why they've made the decision to die.
Controversial
and highly contested in the same way that the claims of monotheistic
religions are incredibly controversial and highly contested. Just
because a lot of people disagree with the evidence/logic, does not
mean that the evidence or logic is answerable. And there is
absolutely no comic irony in my stance, because in order to do what
you've suggested (i.e. opt out of what determinism compels me to do,
which is to argue that free will does not exist), then I would need
to have the very free will that I assert does not exist.”
The
devil responded, “Sure, up is not up and black is actually white.
Your words -
"I
can handle insults perfectly well. What I was complaining about in
the main was the fact that I was not given the opportunity to correct
the distortion made by graham, much less defend myself against the
insults."
Not
that anyone made the silly argument argument you just shrilly hosed
out at the end. Talk about strawloons.”
“"Most
likely" while simultaneously patently false because you Adas
will post whatever dribbles out of your demented heads at will.
Right, derangeomatic, persistently sending emails to someone after
they've asked you to stop is actual
harassment,
not simply having "criticised a Muslim through email", and
certainly not replying
to
him on a message board.
You
sob about harassment, then say it's not harassment. You
complain bitterly that you were "not given the opportunity to
correct the distortion" "much less defend myself against
the insults". All after you've countless times shat out
"safe space" and "triggered" and other alt-right
pap. You're a candypants nutcase.”
John
said, “Anyone who resorts to straw man arguments and then refusing
to acknowledge that they've addressed a point was not made is
covering up for the weakness of their argument. Also, declaring
victory in a debate based on subjective arguments (and ones that are
based on a strawman at that) is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I
don't think that you would allow such tactics to pass without any
comment, but yet you expect me not to have posted again on that
thread and just accept that graham had "won" the argument
and that it was OK to change my wording.
That
"silly argument" is exactly the one you keep making when
you emphasise how "most people" are having a "blast".
This statement is highly dubious in and of itself to anyone who keeps
abreast of international news; but in any case, it is impossible to
avoid the inference that the suffering of the minority (as you
perceive it) is a price worth paying.
Someone
sending you unwanted emails is something that is very easy to address
without the involvement of law enforcement. You block the offending
email address, or refrain from reading the emails. Thus, you've
created your own safe
space with
the minimum of fuss and effort. Moreover, since the communications
are private, nobody but the sender of the emails will think that you
are being evasive and therefore there is no compulsion to respond in
order to defend oneself against libel, or merely save face, where one
may feel compelled to defend oneself against libelous statements and
not appear evasive.”
Devil’s
retort, “Nor of anyone if you 'neaked up and capped 'em in the
head, either. No, again, because once completed, no punishment can be
inflicted upon a suicide. It's really not too hard. Empathy for
the deranged. What kind of attention-starved narcissistic person
would want to inflict such a thing ahead of time on people who feel
that way? And you don't need medicine to turn out the lights
peacefully and easily.
Not
ignoring, we've just discussed ad nauseum. They have
options; they may could be considered effectively terminal; that
justify your institutionalizing and wide availability for the
deranged and the cowardly.”
“they
are either thoroughly deranged or some combination of that and
sociopathic and wishing to make a scene. For the mentally
competent and minimally physically capable there are trivially easy
means if they've actually
decided
and aren't acting out of derangement or ill will.
Again,
they can't regret it if you gas them and their whole family while
they sleep, and many other demented things considered relevant only
by psychopath supervillain types. But many many having gone
through suicidal crises and recovered and been glad for it is very
strong evidence for helping them overcome their illness rather than
feeding it.
And,
"get it while you can, or not, just don't make a scene" is
about as far from "abstract and metaphysical reasons" as
one can get, but don't let that stop your silly projection, death
cult guy. Having suicide institutionalized as a "treatment"
for you perpetual whiner types would trap a sh!t-ton of vulnerable
people in your pit of ghastly morosity.”
“To
inflict that on friends and family as you described is pure
narcissistic prima
donna
patheticness.”
“As
I've already granted -
And
as I explained explicitly, that is patently deranged thinking. Either
you 1) don't understand the futility of effort or 2) you're trapped
voodoo style by a body that acts contrary to your perceived will and
so can't acknowledge that you understand said futility, or 3) you do
understand but enjoy the trollpleasure effect generated in your
hypothalamus. That's two demented possible states and one rational
but decidedly sociopathic one.“
John
the suicidal said, “That would be an action taken without the
consent of the person being killed, though. There's good reason to
safeguard a person's rights not to be assaulted without their consent
- it helps to create a climate where people are not concerned about
being maliciously attacked. Also, the loved ones of the person being
killed would be rightly aggrieved if the person was killed without
any warrant, whereas if the person died by assisted suicide, they
would likely feel aggrieved but would not be justified in believing
that they had a right to force that person to live for their sake.”
“It
can be inflicted upon a failed suicide and the state is able to
aggressively prevent suicide by removing or limiting access to the
means for suicide. Such as building suicide barriers on bridges,
making it illegal to access Nembutal, they can ban businesses from
selling other household substances which can be used as part of a
suicide, such as Lime Sulphur (which can be mixed with hydrochloric
acid to create Sulphur Dioxide in what's known as a detergent
suicide). They can force entry to your home and ransack the place if
you are suspected of owning the means to commit suicide. This has
happened on a number of occasions to people who have ordered Nembutal
from abroad, telling nobody of their intentions. So on and so forth.
Even though suicide is not illegal, it is certainly the farthest
thing from being a protected right. It currently exists in kind of a
grey area, wherein it is not de jure a crime, but is mandated by law
to be prevented where possible.”
“How
is it 'empathy' when you are trapping them in a situation which you
know is causing them grievous suffering and which has no guarantee of
being remedied in any other way? How was the British legal system
being 'empathetic' in forcing Tony Nicklinson to die by starvation,
after a long and ill fated legal battle to legalise the right to
die?”
“Some
people would prefer the chance to say goodbye to someone they love,
rather than have their suicide come as a shock. But that's really
rather beside the point. The point would be that the police would
have the power to force entry to the person's home, confiscate the
Nembutal and take the person into custody. Not that such action would
always have been prompted by the tip off from a loved one. There have
been numerous cases in which the authorities have somehow found out
that an individual possesses Nembutal, resulting in the person's home
being raided and them taken into custody. Please explain how that
state of affairs is remotely consistent with suicide being deemed a
'right' of any kind? Please explain what the moral justification for
such an action would be?
Nembutal
is the most peaceful and painless way of dying. It's up there with an
exit bag combined with Nitrogen or Helium, but is more failsafe,
added to the fact that Helium canister manufacturers are now adding
lung irritants or mixing the Helium with Oxygen in order to prevent
their canisters being used in a suicide. A Nitrogen canister is very
difficult to come across unless you are a professional in an industry
which uses Nitrogen.”
“They
have very limited options if they are not living independently, and
non-existent options short of starvation if they are paralysed (and
even this may be denied to them if the carers force feed them to keep
them alive). Paralysed people are not considered eligible for
assistance to die in most jurisdictions which have 'right to die'
laws on the books. Those laws typically serve only those with a
prognosis of 6 months or less to live. And of course, by the time
that they've cleared all of the legal hurdles, they're probably
fairly close to the end of that period anyway; or for all the stress
that the process causes they may be just as well waiting out the last
months and hoping that it doesn't get drawn out longer than what the
doctors predicted. The laws on the books in the US states which allow
assisted dying, as well as the pusillanimous travesty of a law that
Canada passed last year are virtually useless.”
“People
would not go to the risk of spending several hundred dollars and the
risk of being caught to import Nembutal from overseas if there were
many trivially easy ways of dying. And these are people who are
hard-core suicide aficionados who are paying for Nembutal from the
far-east; not people who have barely formed a coherent thought on the
matter of suicide.
And
like I've mentioned above, people should have the right to consent to
what you're going to do to them, even if it kills them without them
realising what's happening. But what is crucial to realise is that
the family peacefully gassed to death in their sleep are not in fact
victims; the victims are those who are left alive and who would feel
wronged by that death. Whilst those same people may feel wronged if
their loved ones are taken by assisted suicide; that speaks against
their own lack of compassion and their own sense of entitlement, and
is in no way an indictment of a right to die.
Well,
people are going to tend to mourn a suicide anyway, and by telling
them of your plans beforehand you spare them the shock and get the
chance to explain your reasoning in person. But that really is beside
the point.
The
conscious veto thing does not salvage free will in the sense that you
believe it to. They're still reacting to another cause which
intervenes to inhibit the effect of the primary cause. You should
read the comments on that article you posted; particularly the ones
by george.ortega. Free will is as well supported by evidence as
transubstantiation.
There
is no futility in the effort, as I've already explained. I'm not
expending any extra effort above and beyond what I'm caused to
expend; and the result of my efforts will not be naught; it will be
whatever it is predetermined to be.”
The
devil said, “Sure, but we're not speaking of your standard
reprehensible behaviors, we're speaking of your candybritches howls
of harassment and out-of-the-exchange wails of being prevented
from
doing _anything_. Actually posting "not
being given the opportunity to correct distortions" "much
less defend yourself from insults"
because
someone declined
to
keep responding to your strawbulls, your declarations of victory,
your countless refusals to acknowledge that you've addressed points
not made, and your outright lies and patent irrationalities is
covering up for the derangement of a twit without any standards
whatsoever.”
“that
and just accept that graham had "won" the argument and that
it was OK to change my wording. You keep demonstrating that your
"thinker" is quite broken. I'll comment to my heart's
content. What I won't do is spew insipid alt-right chants about
"safe-space" and "triggering" and then make
deranged baby statements about "not
given the opportunity to correct"
"much
less defend", because
I'm not a hypocrite, and as a sane person I know that I have every
option to reply as I like.
People
rephrase to highlight the absurdity of stances all the time. It's
standard viable debating when it's not your standard of sideways
ass-pulls of new meaning.”
“That
is an argument against antinatalism, and applies to the odds of
everyone at the outset, even those who do end up having a bad time,
and certainly not the "usual argument"
that
"the suffering of the unfortunate is unimportant and only happy
people matter". Holy completely change the meaning,
Hysterical Hypocrite Bat-toddler.
And
your poopy diaper fascination and they-can't-care-if-they're-dead
psychopathy is a really healthy lens to view the world with.
”
“1)
I only brought up "safe space" to mock your high hypocrisy
with it, as it is misused alt-right vapid pap. 2) Whether you
don't have to answer, can individually block whatever address the
maniac can come up with, can refuse persistently delivered unwanted
packages, can ignore him parked at the end of your driveway all hours
of the day for extended periods, or whatever else you psychos come up
with, doesn't mean we as citizens think that any other person should
have to put up with such derangement. 3) Because it was
private, unsolicited abusive communications as opposed to a public
discussion place is one of the key reasons it is considered
harassment. What other motive could he have had?
But
regardless of another gorked position of yours on a matter, the point
you tried to hose was that considering that actual harassment was
somehow similar to your howling like a teary goth cupcake over
someone declining
to
reply to your patent nonsense, and weeping on about "harassment"
because somebody replied to your various dishonesties and
derangements on a public church.
You
remain the candypants hypocrite pure nutcase.”
John
the depressed couldn’t handle the relentless bullying by the devil.
Falconia the angel tried to save him but he committed suicide and
ended up in hell.
Copyright
© 2017 by Ben Caesar All rights reserved.
No
part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic
or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval
systems, without permission in writing from the author.
This
book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents
either are products of the author’s imagination or are used
fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead,
events, or locales is entirely coincidental.
