549
submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.

It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?

[-] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.

"Who are you to judge ... Why do you refuse to answer"

I've been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I've made.

Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to "therefore we should actively kill them".

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The question is not whether or not someone should suffer

That’s the only question. Because the standard here is “irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering”. By labeling such a person “momentarily sad” you’re not only judging them, you’re placing your judgement above that of medical professionals. You’re also lying about the necessary conditions for consideration for the program.

And aiding in a person’s suicide with their consent is not the same as simply killing them.

You can’t have an honest, rational discussion, like an adult, then there’s no point in continuing

[-] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Do you literally not know what ethics is? You've acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.

You realise you can sum your position to

If someone desires something

Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)

But this isn't actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.

The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

More insults and more straw man arguments

this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
549 points (95.1% liked)

News

22896 readers
3868 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS