Who wants to kill the elderly?

[Dan Rowden]

To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?

Fear breeds control. There is nothing to fear. To impose your will on anyone exhibits a lack of power.

Indeed, I therefore have no fear of euthanasing those people and not allowing the others to impose their moral will [and fear] upon me.

[Steven]

To Beingof1 and others who find the premise of this thread disturbing, let me ask you this: let's say, hypothetically, we were to discover that last stage Alzheimer's patients, for whatever reason (brain viruses or something) represented a clear and present danger to Humanity's survival. Do you euthanasie them or not?

Fear breeds control. There is nothing to fear. To impose your will on anyone exhibits a lack of power.

Indeed, I therefore have no fear of euthanasing those people and not allowing the others to impose their moral will [and fear] upon me.

You also have no ability to do so, so the point is moot, though your motivation by its very presence renders you incapable of avoiding your own moral will and fear.

So you’re saying that seeing there is no right or wrong is the right way to see things, boy that is really confusing….

Seeing there is no right and wrong is how one sees things for what they are.

[Dan Rowden]

Indeed, I therefore have no fear of euthanasing those people and not allowing the others to impose their moral will [and fear] upon me.

You also have no ability to do so, so the point is moot, though your motivation by its very presence renders you incapable of avoiding your own moral will and fear.

My ethical scenario -- a) doesn't require my real world practical ability for me to take any such action, only the hypothesis of it, and, b) doesn't even require that - it merely requires the articulation of my ethical position that such an action - taken by anyone - is appropriate.

The fact is, the hypothetical is powerful in that it doesn't matter if you answer yes or no to it, you are making a choice which will produce death on some scale death, and doing so for what you consider some form of "good". The whole idea was to highlight the relative nature of good, "greater" or otherwise, and that in many cases our subjective notion of such a good has an identical underlying logical character to that which we find morally repulsive.

"It's wrong to kill a group of people for any reason! I will stand on this principle even if it means the end of Humanity itself!" People who say that kind of thing are always simultaneously amusing and scary.

[Beingof1]

Ryan:

Killing myself wouldn’t make sense though because at present my life is worth living.

So you still are unable to answer this question.

You have no clue as to why you are living your life but you are able to discern the quality of life for another ?

You have not thought this through at all.

However, if I suddenly develop a terminal disease with no cure, and I become a burden to the society, or if my mind starts to go on me, then what is the point?

The doctors can be wrong - I am living proof.

If your mind starts to go on you, how will you 'know' what your life is worth?

I would certainly end it then. Basically, if I begin to lose my ability to reason, then I will actually have a reason to end my life.

You are not reasoning right now - because you cannot answer the question - what makes your life valuable?

How can you determine quality of life for another without being able to answer this question?

Moreover, I’m not advocating the killing of large numbers of unconscious humans, they seem to accomplish that on their own accord...but putting cancer patients, the severely neurotic and Alzheimer’s patients out of their misery seems fairly humane and pragmatic to me.

Then you would have pulled the switch on me and yet - here I am.

Being of 1, I personally believe you’ve been too heavily influenced by Christian dogma that conditions followers into believing that all killing is always wrong.

That is because; like most sceptics of the scripture, you have never read them(or made a serious attempt to) and so you are just making an assumption.

Killing is justified in the Old Testament and capital punishment is alluded to in the New Testament as descending from God.

I find you engaging in a thought experiment as to why you can justify killing others and like most - you exclude yourself as exempt. In the New Testament, that is known as hypocrisy, so I do agree with the New Testament and understand the anger of Jesus when reading this thread.

By the way - could you tell me what the Buddha said about this subject?


Steven:

Seeing there is no right and wrong is how one sees things for what they are.

Well said


Dan:

My ethical scenario -- a) doesn't require my real world practical ability for me to take any such action, only the hypothesis of it, and, b) doesn't even require that - it merely requires the articulation of my ethical position that such an action - taken by anyone - is appropriate.

I take note it is somehow appropriate in certain cases to do away with others, why should your life have value?

The fact is, the hypothetical is powerful in that it doesn't matter if you answer yes or no to it, you are making a choice which will produce death on some scale death, and doing so for what you consider some form of "good".

Hypothetically as well as practical application; Hitler, doing away with Jews, Gypsies, mentally retarded, mongoloid, etc resulted in a fantastic economic boom for Germany.

The world was in the Great Depression. Hitler confiscated all Jewish lands, money, and businesses and a miracle - the economy recovered.

Is this the kind of greater good you are talking about?

The whole idea was to highlight the relative nature of good, "greater" or otherwise, and that in many cases our subjective notion of such a good has an identical underlying logical character to that which we find morally repulsive.

Trying to justify killing is a past time most serial killers indulge in.

Tell me - why is your life valuable?

"It's wrong to kill a group of people for any reason! I will stand on this principle even if it means the end of Humanity itself!" People who say that kind of thing are always simultaneously amusing and scary.

So; Terry Schiavo - did she merit your gracious endowment of life or was she just so much baggage to be done away with?

I find, especially given the teachings of Buddha (of which this forum champions) that one does not have to look to far to see where fear is.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Steven,

Seeing there is no right and wrong is how one sees things for what they are.

Whether you want to admit it or not, most humans form some sort of value system according to their own subjective experience, and some value systems are more rational than others. For instance: the Buddha stated that desire is the root of all suffering, which meant that ego-driven unrefined desire is a negative thing based on the suffering it inflicts on the individual. Moreover, Through the filter of subjective experience, there is always right and wrong action.

You are trying to diffuse my euthanasia argument because you believe it is a wrong action….Any ethical philosopher always is concerned with right or wrong, as one needs to analyze the way thing are within oneself and externally in the world to determine what is the best course of action, For instance:

Should humans drive SUVS or small 4 cylinder cars?
Should humans collectively slow down the rate of reproduction?
Should humans indulge in romantic love and marriage?
Should humans impulsively give in to every emotional desire they have?
Should humans strive to end the ego and improve their overall emotional intelligence?

All these questions have right or wrong answers, and each one is derived through the wisdom of enlightened subjective experience.

Being of 1,

You are not reasoning right now - because you cannot answer the question - what makes your life valuable?

The fact that I’m rational thinker.

I find you engaging in a thought experiment as to why you can justify killing others and like most - you exclude yourself as exempt. In the New Testament, that is known as hypocrisy, so I do agree with the New Testament and understand the anger of Jesus when reading this thread.

I know that Jesus was a fighter of unconsciousness, and the Christian overlords made up a lot of false stories about how “compassionate” he was to lower walks of life, but I doubt he actually wasted too much time on people who had no potential for enlightenment. And if he did, then that is the degree to which he himself had emotional vices.

Christian morality is bizarre at best – it basically says: “lets devote and waste the majority of our time to caring for the weak, unconsciousness and most unintelligent of the population, and meanwhile young intellectuals are starving for truth – it is a backwards spiritual philosophy through and through….

[Jason]

The fact that I’m rational thinker.

What if someone claimed that they were a rational thinker, and from their perspective you were in fact not a rational thinker, that you were just delusional. Whose claim should take precedence and why?

[Steven]

Steven,

Seeing there is no right and wrong is how one sees things for what they are.

Whether you want to admit it or not, most humans form some sort of value system according to their own subjective experience, and some value systems are more rational than others... Moreover, Through the filter of subjective experience, there is always right and wrong action.

Should humans drive SUVS or small 4 cylinder cars?
Should humans collectively slow down the rate of reproduction?
Should humans indulge in romantic love and marriage?
Should humans impulsively give in to every emotional desire they have?
Should humans strive to end the ego and improve their overall emotional intelligence?

All these questions have right or wrong answers, and each one is derived through the wisdom of enlightened subjective experience.

The moral and ethical certainty that what you call enlightenment grants you is in its entirety a construct you have fabricated for your own subjective, emotional needs. Each of those questions is answerable only by a desire.

Should those born into poverty without chance for excess be granted to right the to drive SUVs while those born into wealth toil to equalise the situation?
Should those that have chosen material comfort be denied the right to children while those that have been forced to endure poverty be granted the comfort of company and family?
Should those that have experienced the highest levels of material wealth and quality of life be denied the right to love and marriage in order to balance the world and create sustainability in the population?
Should personal choice and nationhood be eradicated and systematic scientific and logical interpretation of the goals of the species become dictator of our race?

The sage does not act and so does not ruin, does not grasp and so does not lose. Helps all beings to find their nature, but does not presume to act. Practices non-action and the natural order is not disrupted.

The enlightened do not see the Tao. They accept the Tao.

You are not reasoning right now - because you cannot answer the question - what makes your life valuable?

The fact that I’m rational thinker.

As is every man. They are just influenced in individual and unique ways requiring their lifetime and their perspective to comprehend.

I know that Jesus was a fighter of unconsciousness.

You know he was written as such. Anything more is faith.

"It's wrong to kill a group of people for any reason! I will stand on this principle even if it means the end of Humanity itself!" People who say that kind of thing are always simultaneously amusing and scary.

Thus speaketh the Sage.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason,

What if someone claimed that they were a rational thinker, and from their perspective you were in fact not a rational thinker, that you were just delusional. Whose claim should take precedence and why?

Through an well thought out argument, it would soon become apparent who is more rational based on errors in thinking, emotional attachments and so on. the wise can easily see spot another wise thinker or a fool, but many times a fool is incapable of recognizing either.

Steven,

The moral and ethical certainty that what you call enlightenment grants you is in its entirety a construct you have fabricated for your own subjective, emotional needs. Each of those questions is answerable only by a desire

No , each is answered by a truth, a truth derived through the casual understanding of reality and having a sane subjective center and brain. However, I agree that there is still an emotional need for the enlightened - but that emotional need stems from the desire to be psychologically robust and untouchable.

Should personal choice and nationhood be eradicated and systematic scientific and logical interpretation of the goals of the species become dictator of our race?

If everyone was rational, a leader to guide people wouldn't be necessary, a dictator would never work anyway, people are too emotional to accept a rational way of living.

Should those that have experienced the highest levels of material wealth and quality of life be denied the right to love and marriage in order to balance the world and create sustainability in the population?

As I said, you cannot force anybody to do anything, unless through government policy. For instance: A one-child policy in China is a wise course of action. However, the truly enlightened are able to see the superficial nature of many of the things that humanity holds so close to their hearts – IE: emotional/romantic love, family, hoarding material possessions, impressing ones neighbors, …all these things are very egotistical and base if one analyzes their motivations….

As is every man.

No, very few are rational. Humans are habits of delusion for the most part. They are slaves to their own endocrinology. Genetic Engineering of the future will be used to restrict endocrine function, while maximizing brain cell complexity and holistic cognition geometry. Humans of the future will have dormant endocrine systems, combined with enlarged cortex's, and a neurological brain pattern similar to those found in sages/scientists...

In my mind, the perfect human being would have the psychological invincibility of the sage, but also possess the empirical skills of the scientist - basically, he would be capable of using scientific/empirical concepts to map reality in new ways as a means to accelerate technology, economic change, invention, and solve many of the world's problems.

He would be both a master of inward pragmatism and outward pragmatism. His analytic abilities could stress into any field of thought that he so desired to explore...

[Jason]

Through an well thought out argument, it would soon become apparent who is more rational based on errors in thinking, emotional attachments and so on. the wise can easily see spot another wise thinker or a fool, but many times a fool is incapable of recognizing either.

So, according to you, can these fools mistake themselves for wise thinkers?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Jason,

So, according to you, can these fools mistake themselves for wise thinkers?

Its possible, but then it would be the responsibility of someone who is rational to point out their error.

However, there are definitely spectrum's of understanding in different fields of knowledge that don't actually relate directly to enlightenment, for instance: one might have the direct experience of the enlightened state, but some of their opinions about the world could be questionable.

As an example, I generally agree with the pillars of enlightenment set forth by David and Kevin in their works, but some of their general opinions about other things I may not agree with…

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: No one is arguing whether overpopulation is a problem or not. The question is, do you as an individual get to decide the fate of others based on your own personal preferences?

Ryan: But if the world is rational, then the world’s preferences are my preferences anyway.

Well, the world's preference is clearly in opposition to yours. Besides, who are you to say what is rational for everyone else? In fact, you are plainly being irrational by implying that.

sam: Why should that be your decision? Why can't the family decide what to do?

Ryan: Is a brain-dead Alzheimer’s patient in a position to make that decision?

Alzheimer's patients aren't brain-dead. As for those who are, relatives get to make those decisions if a prior decision by the patient has not be made.

What about an irrational family member who is afraid to lose the person because of emotional reasons, their emotional involvement would prevent them from doing the right thing and putting the person out of their misery.

Are you saying you get to decide what to do when others don't agree with you? Do you know what arrogance is Ryan?

It is only the truly rational that can make such judgments.

Again, you imply that you get to decide what is rational and what isn't for everyone else. Bin Laden makes those kind of arguments too. You and Bin Laden, just two rational guys making rational choices for the rest of us! Lol ... what a buffoon!

[divine focus]

Fear breeds control. There is nothing to fear. To impose your will on anyone exhibits a lack of power.

Indeed, I therefore have no fear of euthanasing those people and not allowing the others to impose their moral will [and fear] upon me.

There is nothing to fear, so therefore you will euthanize them? How can any non-consentual euthanisia (i.e., killing) be based on anything but fear? Humanity will die...I must save humanity! Or I will die...I must do something!! Each individual finds their power within themselves. Their safety requires no action against anyone or in opposition to anyone else's choice. You cannot choose for all of humanity whether each individual shall die or not. All power is held individually. The choice for all of humanity to survive is not yours or any individual's to make.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

Besides, who are you to say what is rational for everyone else?

I am an authority on such matters, and you clearly aren’t, as you take the all too feminine position that it is arrogant to judge another. When humanity finds the courage to judge others and judge themselves then they will become truly rational.

Are you saying you get to decide what to do when others don't agree with you?

People trust experts all the time – they trust doctors to give them medications, so why not give control over to the health professionals, psychologists and philosophers to decide when people ought to die, it is a very rational position...If life isn't worth living, end it in a humane way.

Again, you imply that you get to decide what is rational and what isn't for everyone else. Bin Laden makes those kind of arguments too. You and Bin Laden, just two rational guys making rational choices for the rest of us! Lol ... what a buffoon!

that is really poor reasoning - equating this argument with the ideas of Hitler and Bid laden, as these individuals are so divorced from the actual argument at hand. We are talking about actively ending a person’s life when their bodies and brains are worn out, instead of allowing the indifferent world of causality to slowly kill them through an agonizing or brain-numbing process - many people agree with me, I actually debated this issue at university, and won…the other arguments were weak.

[Steven]

Sam,

Besides, who are you to say what is rational for everyone else?

I am an authority on such matters, and you clearly aren’t, as you take the all too feminine position that it is arrogant to judge another. When humanity finds the courage to judge others and judge themselves then they will become truly rational.

It is far from clear that you are an authority on such matters and arguing from authority is a fundamental flaw in debating that refutes the claim of the ability to reason the arguement itself through exposing an emotive and forceful appeal for the acceptance of a rhetorical position of superiority within the arguement.

That a person can judge that their view is correct is not in doubt, but the position supporting the existence of an objective or absolute ethically correct judgement fails as shown repeatedly in this thread when one is asked to rationally justify the claim that their ethical arguement is objectively correct.

The only arguement you can posit to support the claim that your judgement is ethically correct is "I am right, therefore I am right".

Are you saying you get to decide what to do when others don't agree with you?

People trust experts all the time – they trust doctors to give them medications, so why not give control over to the health professionals, psychologists and philosophers to decide when people ought to die, it is a very rational position...If life isn't worth living, end it in a humane way.

This is an illogical statement for it posits that someone lacking direct experience of a particular subjective existence can form an objective judgement on its subjective "worth".

Again, you imply that you get to decide what is rational and what isn't for everyone else. Bin Laden makes those kind of arguments too. You and Bin Laden, just two rational guys making rational choices for the rest of us! Lol ... what a buffoon!

that is really poor reasoning - equating this argument with the ideas of Hitler and Bid laden, as these individuals are so divorced from the actual argument at hand. We are talking about actively ending a person’s life when their bodies and brains are worn out, instead of allowing the indifferent world of causality to slowly kill them through an agonizing or brain-numbing process - many people agree with me, I actually debated this issue at university, and won…the other arguments were weak.

Hitler attempted to eradicate serious genetic deficiencies in a particular ethnic population through forced sterilisation and auto-euthanasia, while employing World War as a means of forcing natural selection upon the human race via his enslavment or extermination of those cultures he conquered.

How is this irrational? What is irrational about the process of a World War of extermination to force the natural selection of the superior genetic material best suited for an environment requiring intelligence, ruthlessness, adaptability, cunning, work ethic etc?

The process is logically sound.

[hsandman]

Sheet... Ruthless fucks. That's the problem with psychopaths... too shallow in doing analysis of the tit-for-tat games.
Ever heard of a game called prisoners dilemma? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Read it.

The ruthless ingratitude builds up over time, until one day it is your turn.

That is what "karma" is ... stupids ;-).


1) Since when did the nature enlist your help in designing "perfect species"?

2) Lol! "I kill for the better world" May I suggest you join the army, because wars (as apposed to old people) are good for economy…:-S

3) You are not the most "rational" and "intelligent" people around. See point 1. After the senile, old people are gone, you are the next on the list. (Some of the old people have contributed more to society than you will ever do in your life time. Educated guess there)

4) How far are you willing to go with your rational "Perfection" ? Who is setting the standards? Reductio ad absurdum - <Latin for "reduction to the absurd"> (Always a good thought exercise.)

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: Besides, who are you to say what is rational for everyone else?

Ryan: I am an authority on such matters, and you clearly aren’t ...

Ah, the appeal to authority, "I must be right because, well, I am an authority." The very fact of appealing to authority shows that you aren't one, that you are a poseur who wants to be seen as an authority. Putting forth a primary fallacy as an argument shows the depth of your cluelessness.

... as you take the all too feminine position that it is arrogant to judge another. When humanity finds the courage to judge others and judge themselves then they will become truly rational.

Judgment as discrimination, the drawing of distinctions, is perfectly fine. Judgment as moral superiority however ("this person is worthless and deserving of euthanasia") seems to be what you're best at.

sam: Are you saying you get to decide what to do when others don't agree with you?

Ryan: People trust experts all the time – they trust doctors to give them medications, so why not give control over to the health professionals, psychologists and philosophers to decide when people ought to die, it is a very rational position...If life isn't worth living, end it in a humane way.

People trust those who are deserving of trust. Such people have shown themselves caring and compassionate enough to make difficult decisions. You have demonstrated just the opposite, you don't care about individual lives and the worth of life itself simply depends on productivity to you, about as callous a calculation as can be made. People might trust you to run a Nazi death camp, you might in fact be good at that.

sam: Again, you imply that you get to decide what is rational and what isn't for everyone else. Bin Laden makes those kind of arguments too. You and Bin Laden, just two rational guys making rational choices for the rest of us! Lol ... what a buffoon!

that is really poor reasoning - equating this argument with the ideas of Hitler and Bid laden, as these individuals are so divorced from the actual argument at hand.

Hitler also judged people according to their productivity and bin Laden asserts his authority all the time. You are doing nothing different than either of them.

We are talking about actively ending a person’s life when their bodies and brains are worn out, instead of allowing the indifferent world of causality to slowly kill them through an agonizing or brain-numbing process ...

You still haven't answered why the person themself or their relatives should defer their judgment to you. Given your affinity with the death camp commandants, I doubt anyone would feel a need to do that.

... many people agree with me, I actually debated this issue at university, and won…the other arguments were weak.

Then your debating partners were imbeciles. You haven't given a single worthy argument here to support your views, only that you know better than everyone else and we should just accept that. That is the kind of argument only a boob would make. And you do it with pride. Arrogant ignorance seems to be your stock-in-trade.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Steven,

This is an illogical statement for it posits that someone lacking direct experience of a particular subjective existence can form an objective judgement on its subjective "worth".

When it comes to suffering and brain function, we all experience the world in the same way, and so one can be confident in judging when another is brain-dead or in intense suffering.

Sam,

Judgment as moral superiority however ("this person is worthless and deserving of euthanasia") seems to be what you're best at.

I only suggest what I would want for myself in that situation, as I feel it is a perfectly moral position. If I was suffering, and medicine couldn’t touch it, or if I was brain-dead, I would think it would be humane for a doctor to kill me.

Hitler also judged people according to their productivity and bin Laden asserts his authority all the time. You are doing nothing different than either of them.

There is nothing wrong with asserting ones authority, as long as ones argument is sound.

People trust those who are deserving of trust. Such people have shown themselves caring and compassionate enough to make difficult decisions. You have demonstrated just the opposite, you don't care about individual lives and the worth of life itself simply depends on productivity to you, about as callous a calculation as can be made. People might trust you to run a Nazi death camp, you might in fact be good at that.

Sure I care, I care about creating a slave class in the health industry, I care about investing natural resources that we can’t spare to keep brain-dead humans alive, I care about keeping someone alive who is suffering greatly…

You still haven't answered why the person themself or their relatives should defer their judgment to you. Given your affinity with the death camp commandants, I doubt anyone would feel a need to do that.

I didn’t say I would take advantage of that judgment as a one-man show dictating to the world my universal rule, although I do like the sounds of that (joke), but seriously humans could slowly move in the direction of government regulated euthanasia, through levels of authorization of doctors, family and psychologists, but eventually a consensus could emerge within the society that when a human becomes terminally ill or brain-dead, their life should be terminated prematurely rather than prolonging their misery. I believe this is sound reasoning….

[samadhi]

Ryan,

I only suggest what I would want for myself in that situation, as I feel it is a perfectly moral position. If I was suffering, and medicine couldn’t touch it, or if I was brain-dead, I would think it would be humane for a doctor to kill me.

Great. You want to decide for yourself. But you don't want to give other people the same option. Do you know what hypocrisy is, Ryan?

There is nothing wrong with asserting ones authority, as long as ones argument is sound.

But you haven't even made an argument, much less a sound one. All you have said is that if people can't be productive, they should be killed, based on your authority. The appeal to authority itself is a fallacy which you have ignored again.

Sure I care, I care about creating a slave class in the health industry, I care about investing natural resources that we can’t spare to keep brain-dead humans alive, I care about keeping someone alive who is suffering greatly…

But you don't care about what others might think. Only what you think seems to matter to you.

I didn’t say I would take advantage of that judgment as a one-man show dictating to the world my universal rule, although I do like the sounds of that (joke), but seriously humans could slowly move in the direction of government regulated euthanasia, through levels of authorization of doctors, family and psychologists, but eventually a consensus could emerge within the society that when a human becomes terminally ill or brain-dead, their life should be terminated prematurely rather than prolonging their misery. I believe this is sound reasoning….

The question has already been debated for decades in case you're unaware of it. The consensus seems to be that each individual should decide beforehand what should be done in the case of a terminal illness. Absent that the relatives should decide. Involuntary euthanasia was the Nazi consensus. Dealing death to the weak and helpless may be sound reasoning to you but others decided it wasn't the kind of society we wanted. I guess you can always try again.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

Great. You want to decide for yourself. But you don't want to give other people the same option. Do you know what hypocrisy is, Ryan?

No, it isn’t hypocrisy because if I were brain-dead, it wouldn’t be my decision, it would be the doctors, the psychologists or the state.

But you haven't even made an argument, much less a sound one. All you have said is that if people can't be productive, they should be killed, based on your authority. The appeal to authority itself is a fallacy which you have ignored again.

Not exactly, you only hear the parts you want. I also said that if people are suffering greatly and the pain medication won’t end their pain, like many terminal illness then they should be killed, or if they are brain-dead, and are unable to form a sentence together or remember who they are…. It is much more than just being unproductive… it also includes being in a lot of pain or being a zombie…

But you don't care about what others might think. Only what you think seems to matter to you.

I only care about what is the right course of action. and I don't rely on the opinions of others, I rely on my own critical thinking abilities.

The consensus seems to be that each individual should decide beforehand what should be done in the case of a terminal illness. Absent that the relatives should decide. Involuntary euthanasia was the Nazi consensus. Dealing death to the weak and helpless may be sound reasoning to you but others decided it wasn't the kind of society we wanted. I guess you can always try again.

But my argument is that someone with Alzheimer’s is not in a position to decide for themselves, and neither is the family, as they are usually too emotionally attached to do what is right…so we keep these people alive for years and years wondering the hospital halls reading the same fire evacuation procedures off the wall, while asking similar questions each time...A cow has more consciousness...

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: Great. You want to decide for yourself. But you don't want to give other people the same option. Do you know what hypocrisy is, Ryan?

Ryan: No, it isn't hypocrisy because if I were brain-dead, it wouldn’t be my decision, it would be the doctors, the psychologists or the state.

You are deciding for yourself right now. Give others the same priviledge.

sam: But you haven't even made an argument, much less a sound one. All you have said is that if people can't be productive, they should be killed, based on your authority. The appeal to authority itself is a fallacy which you have ignored again.

Ryan: Not exactly, you only hear the parts you want. I also said that if people are suffering greatly and the pain medication won’t end their pain, like many terminal illness then they should be killed, or if they are brain-dead, and are unable to form a sentence together or remember who they are…. It is much more than just being unproductive… it also includes being in a lot of pain or being a zombie…

Saying people should be euthanized against their will is different than giving the person involved or their family a decision to terminate life under hopeless conditions. You have made no argument for involuntary euthanasia other than that kind of life offends your sensibilities. That is a nonsense argument.

sam: But you don't care about what others might think. Only what you think seems to matter to you.

Ryan: I only care about what is the right course of action. and I don't rely on the opinions of others, I rely on my own critical thinking abilities.

Yet you haven't displayed any critical thinking and in fact appealed to the fallacy of authority which demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. Not to mention the authority you cited, yourself, has no standing.

sam: The consensus seems to be that each individual should decide beforehand what should be done in the case of a terminal illness. Absent that the relatives should decide. Involuntary euthanasia was the Nazi consensus. Dealing death to the weak and helpless may be sound reasoning to you but others decided it wasn't the kind of society we wanted. I guess you can always try again.

Ryan: But my argument is that someone with Alzheimer’s is not in a position to decide for themselves, and neither is the family, as they are usually too emotionally attached to do what is right…

Having you ever heard of a living will? Of course not, your ignorance of it is shown by your statement.

... so we keep these people alive for years and years wondering the hospital halls reading the same fire evacuation procedures off the wall, while asking similar questions each time...A cow has more consciousness...

Right, you're offended so just kill them. Let's all trust Ryan to tell us the meaning of life. <gag>

[samadhi]

God help you if anyone ever gets their hands on the Samadhi Universal Remote®

Dan, will you please take the remote out of Ryan's hands! I don't know how much more I can take!!

[hsandman]

Jason,
So, according to you, can these fools mistake themselves for wise thinkers?

Ryan
Its possible, but then it would be the responsibility of someone who is rational to point out their error.

hsandman
Here you go.

Ryan
If everyone was rational, a leader to guide people wouldn't be necessary, a dictator would never work anyway, ("If everyone was rational")(edit. Just like Ryan) people are too emotional to accept a rational way of living.

But my argument is that someone with Alzheimer’s is not in a position to decide for themselves,(edit: How so? I am sure if you asked them they would tell you.) and neither is the family, as they are usually too emotionally attached to do what is right

so we keep these people alive


I also said that if people are suffering greatly and the pain medication won’t end their pain, like many terminal illness then they should be killed.


hsandman
lulz! Do you consider running over car crash victims as sort of "rational help" also? You are the authority on these things after all...

PS. And how hard can it be to kill oneself? Hey if I did not try to stay alive so laboriously, I would be killed 100s of times a day... It's a chore realy.... to stay alive, and you seem to be intent on making it even more challenging.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Many of you continue to blow this argument way out of proportion as a means to totally demonize any weight it has. I’m not advocating a single-dictator euthanasia system– I’m thinking of something along the lines of a government regulated system that states the conditions at which a life should be terminated, and allows psychologists, ethical experts and doctors to make the call by recommending euthanasia to the family, and if they deny, then they should be forced to either pay the bill out of pocket for the months/years until the patient’s death, or homecare the patient themselves.

However, generally speaking, government regulated euthanasia should move humanity in a positive direction, we should be moving people in the direction of rationality, rather than feminine acceptance and blind emotional contentment with conditions.

Basically, It is immoral to keep many types of patients alive. There is a the financial burden to the economic system, the labor burden to healthcare workers, the burden on natural resources, and the simple fact that they are totally zombie-like or in a lot of suffering, and their life isn’t worth living…

It my opinion, the counter-arguments have been weak, emotionally-driven, and poorly thought out – things like – you’re a dictator, or you’re a Hitler, or a Bid Laden shows that many on this forum generally fear anyone who asserts a bit of masculinity that has serious consequences…It illustrates a mental block, where people are afraid to allow the most intelligent among us to make sweeping judgments as to when life isn't worth living.

Many on this forum enjoy the abstract wankering part of GF, but when things move into tough pragmatism, and casual shattering decisions need to be made, many cry by protesting, “oh, don’t kill the zombies! They should have the right to choose when to die”…but these souls are operating in the very lowest rungs of samsara, and they have no choice of their own, they are unable to make conscious decisions, so giving them any responsibility at all shows a lack of rationality...

It would be like giving my dog a map while on a long trip, and telling him to direct me to my destination, while emphasizing the importance that there is only one right path to get there. Do you think the dog would get me to my destination?

[Tomas]

dele

[Tomas]

.

Idiot grandson or senile grandmother?



Ryan, what would you do in this instance...?

Granny Get Your Gun

Florida man charged with filming his 85-year-old grandmother for gangsta video
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... anny1.html


(snippets from article)
A Florida man is facing elder abuse charges after he allegedly filmed his senile 85-year-old grandmother wearing a ski mask and holding a gun for a "Gangstas and Thugs" street DVD series.
The report notes that Huertas, who is holding a .22-caliber gun and appears "disoriented" in the video, makes a series of profane threats and statements like, "Fuck you if you don't like this," "I'll shoot you," and "Palm Beach County, bitch." When investigators showed Huertas the video, "she appeared to be shocked" at her recorded comments, and remarked, "they are making a criminal out of me."

See the photos and booking sheets.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... anny1.html


.