Death with Dignity

[Captain Griffen]

Oh no, it's not like I know anything about debating, I mean, it's not like I debate at the world's most prestigious debating hall in the world...no, obviously not.

And I'm TOTALLY sober while I wrote these messages. Obviously.

 

[Elenai]

Don't drink and HIVE and you won't look like a dingus.. :/

 

[Callahan]

...Is this the only thing you can do? Play with term technicalities?

Technically no.I can also put my toe in my mouth.

...Again, stop trying to paint me as a self proclaimed genius. Or I might consider a start in picking apart your posts for every little detail I see that is wrong with it even though such details have nothing to do with the topic. I am pretty darn sure you got what I said, now get on with the meat of the topic and stop fussing over the damn garnish.

That is what you 're doing?
I think you feel offended because my arguements makes more sense.
And I'm winning the debate tralalèééreuuuu :Þ

The man who put him in the cage is wrong

It seems it's not the pov of that man if moral were innate.

No...Barbaric instincts like raping whomever you please just because you are horny isn't morality, that is called "I'm horny and I don't care".

Well It seems that innate horny people don't have innate moral.

Still not fair, and they know it well.

Why would they deny their daughter and ban her from the family without helping her then?

And once more: For my curiosity...Which of the developed civilized nations with a government that upholds equality have this system of justice?

None because I never mentioned it was a governement that upholds equality.i.e Taliban?
e.g Woman of the paria caste in India.Though they were born paria it's not their fault they're still considered as less than nothing.They found it normal because for them they were evil and sinful in their anterior lives.

---

Anyway it seems we don't have the same definition of moral.
You seems to confuse feeling of injustice wich is innate and moral wich is not.And can even clash with feeling of injustice.
Maybe it's the same for you.
We should have defined the terms of the subject before starting a debate.

And you know what?We have different opinion and I can live with that idea without feeling a monumental need to convince you I'm right.

For my part I consider I've won the debate since you start feeling offended :Þ

 

[Gilles]

In morality? I'd agree.

I don't see how that is logical. It's impossible.

Why are you discussing this with us Griffen? And why are we so stupid? Isn't everything opinion in morality, and aren't we entitled to our opinion? You've been arguing like what you believe, is truth.

 

[Elenai]

I think you feel offended because my arguements makes more sense.

No, I feel offended because you are diminishing my character in this debate. Which is not appropriate.

Callahan's rebuttals regarding 'innate morality'

Flight and Fight are both innate.

Think of morality as flight.

Think of barbaric instincts that lead to rape as fight.

We all have both, but we all choose either one when met with a situation.

The pariah/female thing

And most moral people find it 'unfair', and the treatment to be 'wrong'.

Again, we return to fight of flight. Just because most people fight, doesn't mean flight doesn't exist.

For my part I consider I've won the debate since you start feeling offended :Þ

I remember in my youth, when I dared to claim I won a debate...It turns out everyone declared me the loser.

You have not won, until you have broken me. I remain.

The very fact you have offended me should show you that you are most likely debating improperly. Since you are not offending me by proving your logic, but by portraying me differently than I am.

If you can declare yourself the winner, I can declare you the loser.

"You lose, good day sir."

 

[PurplePoot]

And most moral people find it 'unfair', and the treatment to be 'wrong'.

...moral people being those who agree with you, I imagine?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I think you feel offended because my arguements makes more sense.
And I'm winning the debate tralalèééreuuuu :Þ

...

For my part I consider I've won the debate since you start feeling offended :Þ

Super immaturity powers go! My thunder, don't go getting your dirty hands all over it.

 

[Callahan]

...Actualy I wasn't serious when I said that.
See the ':Þ' smiley?It means i'm not serious.
I tried to be more relax since I felt you upset but whatever.

 

[SanKakU]

i just read through the first few pages or so, and i gotta say especially after reading this post above me...there is way too many posts here of people not being serious, especially with a lot of sarcasm...even though the Original Poster Ash asked for serious discussion...

at any rate...about dying and terminally ill people and all that...
i think people usually are going to die just about when they become terminally weak.

people either allow themselves to become too weak to keep living, or things happen to them that may or may not be out of their control to make them that way.

about the terminally ill diagnosis by a doctor, i think the use of that term is erroneous. a terminally ill patient should typically be one that you can't do a thing about because he's sick, and he's going to die soon. in my opinion, if you call someone terminally ill, you give up on your patient and condemn him to death( can also call it terminate him ). and you're a lazy doctor. you shouldn't call him terminally ill. *

but anyway, as for terminally weak, that's where someone becomes so weak either through injury, or lack of basic life needs fulfilled, such as food or water for example...or normal body temperature...so weak that the person is about to die. he's right about to be terminated. of course miracles happen and people come back to life after becoming terminally weak.

typically, if someone is terminally ill, he should've been spending a lot of time in bed...treasuring his life...hopefully having friends and family visit him so he can have them tell their stories of how their life has been. or if he can manage to talk and needs to say something important, then he may do that also/instead. another thing the person might want to do is pray a lot. ask for god to grant you mercy or whatever and ask him to help your family/friends...maybe even ask him to have your family/friends visit you. maybe even ask him about the afterlife. these are typically things that should be done if a person is terminally ill.

if a person is terminally ill...he shouldn't be able to do much of anything. of course if you try to get him to do something that requires a lot of energy, theorhetically he should die while trying to do it. if someone dies while trying to do something...such as getting up from his bed, can you call that suicide? i rather doubt it. #

as for the concert thing, it sounds suspicious...i think it was already summed up pretty good that somebody was just trying to make a band that he liked particularly famous, that or the terminally ill patient's friend was a huge fan of the band that wanted that. i think that seems likely. maybe even the friend was just joking or being sarcastic about the patient dying at a concert on stage and the patient took him seriously or else just thought it was a good idea. at any rate i say the patient maybe should've laughed at his friend and kept lying in his bed. but if in his laughter his friend calls up the band and they setup an appointment and everything else happens...well...i guess you could say he laughed himself to death.

well anyway that's all hypothetical what i said in that last paragraph. my point is, it's not really our position as man to judge another man's death as to whether it was a righteous way to die. it's god's position. he will judge all life takers as to whether or not the taking of a life was righteous. since all man's life depends on god, this is a normal thing.

of course it's only natural for us to think about these things and form opinions about them, but in the end, we're not the ones who are faced with the decision that the spirits deal with when deciding about what to do with the man who wanted to die on stage at a controversial rock band's concert, after he has died that is. as long as he's alive on the earth, we can do something about it, but once he's dead what happens to him after that is beyond our control. we can bury him and remember him and pray for him or whatever. he's already dead, let's move on and worry about yourselves now. try to shoot for a more righteous death than he had, or if you think it was righteous, then go for it yourself.

* i think the term 'terminally ill' probably came about because in our modern day people have become so heartless and busy that they would ignore their family/friend person that is terminally ill not realizing the gravity of the patient's condition. so the doctors decide to call the patient terminally ill in order to help the friend/family person to know the gravity of the situation so that he can visit the terminally ill patient. all things considered, it's my opinion that doctors hand out that description of a patient far too often. but that's the world we live in, in which everyone overreacts about someone's health...when what they should've done is done something about their health before it got to that point where it's too late and now all the effort in their little world that they can spend is not enough to help the patient...as much as they would hope for. i would call that an overreaction. you should've been reacting a lot more previously but you procrastinated too much. now you think that with your overreaction you can make things better but you find out you are mistaken and feel bad about it. well i'm not sure if usually people even learn their lesson by this point here about overreaction and if not, that's a sad thing.

# i guess i should say that i wouldn't call it an unrighteous suicide, if you had to call it a suicide. it would be more of an accidental suicide.

 

[Elenai]

...moral people being those who agree with you, I imagine?

That's kinda presumptive...

No, moral people being those who live a half way decent existence and strive for civilized treatment of their fellow equal man/woman.

...Actualy I wasn't serious when I said that.
See the ':Þ' smiley?It means i'm not serious.
I tried to be more relax since I felt you upset but whatever.

oh...you weren't serious...

 

[PurplePoot]

That's kinda presumptive...

No, moral people being those who live a half way decent existence and strive for civilized treatment of their fellow equal man/woman.

As I said, those that agree with you.

 

[Elenai]

As I said, those that agree with you.

If that is how you want to describe generally nice people...so be it.

 

[Ash]

You're arguing that someone terminally suffering, with deteriorating mental and physical capacity, should not be allowed to die.

That's not civilized treatment, that's torture.

 

[PurplePoot]

If that is how you want to describe generally nice people...so be it.

And you are defining nice people as those that agree with you (that fit your definition of what is nice, not some 'absolute' one that doesn't even exist).

 

[Elenai]

Or...perhaps generally nice people are people generally do not go around beating up people, breaking laws, and all around act like dysfunctional citizens...

It doesn't take much to define someone who is 'nice', and it isn't very difficult to get a clear definition of a nice person. Not everything has to be set in stone with a 40000 word law book behind it to have a solid definition.

 

[Captain Griffen]

So the halocaust was done by nice people, and all those who harboured Jews were not nice people?

Your making no sense. And, still, the criticisms Poot has repeatedly made remain unanswered.

 

[Hakeem]

You're arguing that someone terminally suffering, with deteriorating mental and physical capacity, should not be allowed to die.

That's not civilized treatment, that's torture.

Brain decay does sound like one of the few things that is truly terminal.

Very well, if the brain is beyond repair, I wont complain about euthanasia.

---

Okay, I can now complete my definitions.

• Right: Something that positively affects something of value.
• Wrong: Something that negatively affects something of value.

Now the question is what has value.

 

[Elenai]

So the halocaust was done by nice people, and all those who harboured Jews were not nice people?

...Where on Earth did you pull that idea out of?

Your making no sense. And, still, the criticisms Poot has repeatedly made remain unanswered.

Like what? The same things you haven't answered without running around in circles or touting about your own superiority?

 

[Ash]

The problem about 'value' is that it differs from person to person. If you generalise it to the government that's in power, then you're not necessarily correct either, as the Nazi government believed that killing jews positively affected their status.

 

[Hakeem]

What people perceive has value varies form person to person. The question is whether or not there is something that has universal value. I have an idea of something, but it does no good to say what mine is. That is why I have asked the rest of you what has value. Perhaps one of you has a better idea of what is truly valuable than I.

 

[Captain Griffen]

...Where on Earth did you pull that idea out of?

From:

Or...perhaps generally nice people are people generally do not go around beating up people, breaking laws, and all around act like dysfunctional citizens...

The vast majority of those involved acted like proper citizens, didn't go around beating people up, and kept to laws.

By contrast, the resistance were a bunch of scum and nasty people according to you.

What people perceive has value varies form person to person. The question is whether or not there is something that has universal value. I have an idea of something, but it does no good to say what mine is. That is why I have asked the rest of you what has value. Perhaps one of you has a better idea of what is truly valuable than I.

No value really exists, except for that we ourselves decide upon.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

By contrast, the resistance were a bunch of scum and nasty people according to you.

Just because they're not nice people by that definition, does not mean they're horrible scum or anything like that.

No value really exists, except for that we ourselves decide upon.

Anything has value in the universe, for it exists and its significance through the fact that it exists shows us that it has some value.

 

[Ash]

There is no such thing as a 'universal value' simply for the fact that everybody has individual differences.

 

[Captain Griffen]

Anything has value in the universe, for it exists and its significance through the fact that it exists shows us that it has some value.

So, once again, Nazi ideals have value?

 

[InfiniteSeven]

So, once again, Nazi ideals have value?

As I said, anything has some value. But how much, depends on the person that looks at it.

 

[Elenai]

The vast majority of those involved acted like proper citizens, didn't go around beating people up, and kept to laws.

By contrast, the resistance were a bunch of scum and nasty people according to you.

You really love to derail the concept with technicalities...

I'll humour you.

The common German people were generally kind. They were brainwashed, desperate, and had a rather large shadow of fear upon them. Not all of them went around beating people up, and not all of them were brutal towards the Jews (read Anne Frank)

There were however, Germans who were NOT kind, namely members of the SS and apparently just like the resistance, were rather awful. A simple German baker named Heinrick who goes about his daily business, respecting others, giving free sweet breads to children on Thursdays, and helping old ladies across the street is still a moral human being, even though he may be too afraid to pick up a gun, run into Auschwitz, attempt a failed one man rebellion, get captured, and thrown into the camp himself to starve.

You don't need to be a hero to be moral. Everyone has morals.

Even Hitler was at one point a good man, who was not always evil, and not always doing wrong. He was at one point a failing artist who was just trying to do something with his life. But then his world view shifted to one of prejudice (or it already had) and he managed to grasp power by winning the hearts and votes of the German people, giving them hope, but enforcing that hope with the oven.

Aside from your use of Hitler as an example...(why everyone must use hitler...)

I'll tell you this much:

"There is a difference between obeying just laws, and obeying unjust ones."

I hoped that you might see the general common sense that I was trying to show you about nice people.

So, once again, Nazi ideals have value?

According to your view of morality, Right/Wrong as you have shown us (a non absolute, as you perceive it one)...yes...according to relativity in right and wrong:

Nazi Values are just as saintly, kind, and benevolent as the values of Gandhi.

So, once again, Nazi ideals have value?

Do you believe they do?

 

[Captain Griffen]

You really love to derail the concept with technicalities...

I'll humour you.

The common German people were generally kind. They were brainwashed, desperate, and had a rather large shadow of fear upon them. Not all of them went around beating people up, and not all of them were brutal towards the Jews (read Anne Frank)

There were however, Germans who were NOT kind, namely members of the SS and apparently just like the resistance, were rather awful. A simple German baker named Heinrick who goes about his daily business, respecting others, giving free sweet breads to children on Thursdays, and helping old ladies across the street is still a moral human being, even though he may be too afraid to pick up a gun, run into Auschwitz, attempt a failed one man rebellion, get captured, and thrown into the camp himself to starve.

You don't need to be a hero to be moral. Everyone has morals.

Even Hitler was at one point a good man, who was not always evil, and not always doing wrong. He was at one point a failing artist who was just trying to do something with his life. But then his world view shifted to one of prejudice (or it already had) and he managed to grasp power by winning the hearts and votes of the German people, giving them hope, but enforcing that hope with the oven.

Aside from your use of Hitler as an example...(why everyone must use hitler...)

I'll tell you this much:

"There is a difference between obeying just laws, and obeying unjust ones."

I hoped that you might see the general common sense that I was trying to show you about nice people.

Blargh blargh blargh. So basically we shouldn't do what laws say, but what we think is just? Thus, the right thing to do is whatever we feel is the right thing to do?

Or, perhaps more accurately, whatever YOU think is the right thing for them to do.

According to your view of morality, Right/Wrong as you have shown us (a non absolute, as you perceive it one)...yes...according to relativity in right and wrong:

Nazi Values are just as saintly, kind, and benevolent as the values of Gandhi.

No. They are just as objectively right as the values of Gandhi, ie: not at all (and neither are they objectively wrong).

Do you believe they do?

InfiniteSeven believes they do.

 

[Elenai]

Blargh blargh blargh.

Your maturity has been noted.

So basically we shouldn't do what laws say, but what we think is just? Thus, the right thing to do is whatever we feel is the right thing to do?

I think anyone with common sense can tell when a law is 'just', and knows to obey them.

"Don't Murder....ok...better not murder then."

"Spit on every Hindu three times, because their skin is brown, then throw your feces at their faces and rub their bodies with cow blood....this isn't very just...I think I shall disobey this law."

Or, perhaps more accurately, whatever YOU think is the right thing for them to do.

Hahaha....don't even pull that ^_^

No. They are just as objectively right as the values of Gandhi, ie: not at all (and neither are they objectively wrong).

Such a lovely 'sit on the fence' answer ^_^

InfiniteSeven believes they do.

Do you?

 

[Hakeem]

No value really exists, except for that we ourselves decide upon.

How does that give a value to anything, if we ourselves are worthless?

There is no such thing as a 'universal value' simply for the fact that everybody has individual differences.

What people value themselves changes, but I believe there is something that truly matters. See above.

---

At long last we reach the core...

 

[Captain Griffen]

I think anyone with common sense can tell when a law is 'just', and knows to obey them.

Then you're agreeing that you're not, in fact, taking part in this debate at all on any intellectual level, just being rabble rouser? Say, I know another rabble rouser who played on people instinctive feelings...

How does that give a value to anything, if we ourselves are worthless?

Gives it a subjective personal value.

 

[Elenai]

Then you're agreeing that you're not, in fact, taking part in this debate at all on any intellectual level, just being rabble rouser? Say, I know another rabble rouser who played on people instinctive feelings...

I am but a mirror Griffen.

A secret

I am attempting to engage in an intellectual debate, I am finding it rather hard to however, when you derail the debate to take little jabs at me ^_^, and how exactly am I playing on people's instincts and not being intellectual? When you yourself are allowed to use "common sense"

The reasoning is self-evident to anyone with a brain. People base their decisions on what they believe. They cannot base it on truth unless they believe what is truth, but that is incidental and not itself a causal link.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/985039-post173.html

 

[Volvox]

Collective consciousness anyone? The fact that so many cultures around the world had similar law systems proves that there are universal values(take life for example, no culture in the world supported unnecessary loss of life).

p.s.
Don't start about sacrificing people in the past, those people thought of it as a way to please the gods, not as a futile loss of life.

 

[Hakeem]

Gives it a subjective personal value.

It is still utterly useless. Value cannot be conjured up by a series of chemical reactions saying so. If I don't respect the fire's desire to burn down my house, what makes the chemical reactions of your brain any different?

 

[Captain Griffen]

I am but a mirror Griffen.

I am attempting to engage in an intellectual debate, I am finding it rather hard to however, when you derail the debate to take little jabs at me ^_^, and how exactly am I playing on people's instincts and not being intellectual? When you yourself are allowed to use "common sense"

I love the way my quote included straight after that a clarification of the point I made so as to make explicit some of the implicit reasoning that I presumed you'd work out yourself.

 

[Elenai]

I love the way my quote included straight after that a clarification of the point I made so as to make explicit some of the implicit reasoning that I presumed you'd work out yourself.

And I love how very vague you are in your confidence.

Moving on:

Perhaps we should define "value".

 

[Misha]

is this going anywhere oO
aren't you feeling embarrased about your constant jabbing Griffen?

values vary from man to man. it is rather.... sad debating endlesly on what was right and what was wrong.

 

[Ash]

Collective consciousness anyone? The fact that so many cultures around the world had similar law systems proves that there are universal values(take life for example, no culture in the world supported unnecessary loss of life).

p.s.
Don't start about sacrificing people in the past, those people thought of it as a way to please the gods, not as a futile loss of life.

So was the sacrafice to the 'Old Gods' not a universal value?

And misha, get out of mah topic if you're not going to contribute.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Perhaps we should define "value".

I agree.

In my perspective, 'value' is a property of objects, not only physical objects, but also abstract objects, that represents the degree of importance to people.

InfiniteSeven believes they do.

Griffen, I may have said Nazi ideals have values, yes, but I think of them as having very little value to me. I stick by what I have said, that anything has some value, but the amount depends on the person who looks at the object.

 

[Gilles]

This thread has really gone downhill. I think it should be closed soon.

 

[Captain Griffen]

This thread has really gone downhill. I think it should be closed soon.

Translation: I'm losing.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

Translation: I'm losing.

And that's a translation of "I can't win, so I'll take a jab at someone instead".

Seriously, stop attacking people and go for their arguments.

 

[Gilles]

Translation: I'm losing.

Huh, I thought you were above that Griffen. This thread has derailed way off, and I'll admit I am part of the cause. It's served it's purpose, and it's slowing turning into trolling and flaming. Why do you think I took our discussion to PMs?

 

[HailFireer]

You cant die with dignity. You can live with dignity, you can even kill someone with dignity, but you cant die with dignity.

 

[Volvox]

Don't take it out of the context. This was about whether or not people have the right to die their way.

 

[HailFireer]

That they have. Eutanazi (did I spell that right) is also aproved if the person chose it. Imagine sick ppl who cant move out of bed and have terible pains whole day. And they dont alove them euthanzy, What cinde of life is that anyway?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Why bother living if you can't feel alive, right? Even if there is no way to die with dignity, it's still better to die in a way of your choosing than a way forced on to you by disease.

 

[HailFireer]

Well thats true.

 

[Ash]

In pursuit of the ultimate happiness, the thing that really makes you feel alive. Or that's my goal, anyway, and also a way of me justifying that if one person's fucked beyond repair, then let him have the last goal left in his life and let him die while he still has his dignity.

 

[Gilles]

In pursuit of the ultimate happiness, the thing that really makes you feel alive. Or that's my goal, anyway, and also a way of me justifying that if one person's fucked beyond repair, then let him have the last goal left in his life and let him die while he still has his dignity.

People don't lose their dignity when they are sick.

 

[Ash]

They do, however, when they're dying of a terminal illness.

If you manage to get one, in most cases you'll suffer almost unendurable pain, loss of physical motor skills and that's not even including the mental side. You can enjoy slowly losing your mental health, whilst enjoying the feeling of every tiny little piece of intelligence you once had wither and wane.

You should try it out sometime.