Suicide Booths

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 7, 2017 20:10:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Dec 7, 2017 18:22:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

2. I generally do this to reduce bulk and improve readability. If you'd prefer I highlight statements and include numbered references, such as I'm doing in this post, just say so.

Shouldn't be necessary.  I have no problem with the reasoning.  I do the same thing.  Where problems may arise is when the response indicates little or no understanding of the context.  What is insanity?  That we apparently have a different opinion on the meaning and proper use of the word "tragedy?" 

I vaguely recall you use an esoteric definition of "tragedy" that precludes anything self-inflicted (or where a victim is otherwise responsible for his own death, such as through carelessness) from being tragic.

This is annoying, but not insane. I should have quoted the entire paragraph.

I generally consider death to be death, and the fact that someone takes their own life is no more tragic than contracting a fatal disease. Things happen. Life happens. It is up to each of us to deal with it the best way we can. If someone believes that suicide is their best option, I accept that. I may not understand it, but I accept it, because it is not my right to dictate someone else's life.

The values system underlying this statement is insane--the sheer moral ambivalence needed to disregard certain mortal harm for no reason other it being self-inflicted.

But you know what it really is? Moral cowardice. I'm not convinced there's genuinely a "we should not prohibit this since the principal harm is self-inflicted" wrench jammed in the cogs of your mind.

If you genuinely set store by this principle, we'd behold Tallguy arguing that e-mail and Ponzi schemes should also be legal. They're opt-in scams where the principal harm is ultimately self-inflicted. But heaven knows we can't guard our fellow man from life-ruining irrational decisions, because that would be "dictating someone else's life".

Up next: loan sharks, smokes, moonshine, casinos, and LSD on every street corner. Freedom for all! Things happen. Life happens. If somebody believes throwing his life away on acid and craps is his best option, we accept that. We may not understand it, but we accept it, because it's not our right to dictate someone else's life.

Mandatory seat belt use? Screw it. If Joe wants his face to go straight into the windshield, we may not understand it, but we accept it.

No diving in the shallow end? What is this, a Puritan colony? If somebody believes diving in the shallow end is their best option, we accept that.

This is insanity, but I refuse to believe you'll hold to your "I may not understand it, but I accept it, because it is not my right to dictate someone else's life" rationalization when the chips are down. That leaves simple moral cowardice. You see evil, you recognize it for what it is, but far be it from you do something and risk looking like a fundamentalist.

[kittensaver]

Dec 8, 2017 8:25:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 7, 2017 20:20:56 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

In this case, the "insanity" is claiming that only a "general discussion based on practical implications" is going on while simultaneously disingenuously throwing in occasional references to "God's Laws."

My religious arguments aren't disingenuous. They're sincere and of greater importance to me than worldly arguments.

I never said your religious arguments are disingenuous. I believe you when you say that your religious beliefs are of great importance to you, and (believe it or not) I respect that.

I said it was disingenuous to claim on one hand that you are "only" trying to have a discussion based on "practical implications" [because you are clear that most folks on this board are not interested in your religious convictions] while simultaneously finding spots in various posts to slip in your religious beliefs. Big difference.

In the mean time - the splitting, hyperbole, deflection and other whataboutisms are pretty interesting . . .

[swamp]

Dec 7, 2017 15:56:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 7, 2017 15:47:41 GMT -5 swamp said:

Nothing, but your interpretation of practical applications is bordering on silliness. 

So dispute my silly arguments on practical implications. Don't pretend I'm ignorant of YMAM's general disposition toward scripture.

That Jesus's teachings that we should feed the hungry, care for the sick, and assist the poor without judgment, and we should act with compassion?  Yeah, there are some real jerks here. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 8, 2017 8:25:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 7, 2017 20:20:56 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

In this case, the "insanity" is claiming that only a "general discussion based on practical implications" is going on while simultaneously disingenuously throwing in occasional references to "God's Laws."

Take it up with DJ. He's the one who asked and then insisted.

i didn't insist.  i asked nicely.  and i asked that you consider responding on the religious board, anticipating your reply.  i am in no position to demand anything of you, even common courtesy.   please stop implying otherwise.

edit: i would note, however, that you didn't answer the question.  the poster quite correctly pointed out the conflict between "considering the general implications" and sticking to your dogma.

that seems pretty disingenuous to me, to use your word.

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I never said your religious arguments are disingenuous. I believe you when you say that your religious beliefs are of great importance to you, and (believe it or not) I respect that.

Thank you for clarifying.

You say you respect that my religious beliefs are of great importance to me. I believe you, but of what significance is this to me? You don't agree with my beliefs, and you oppose laws consistent with them.

I respect that your beliefs about kittens are of great importance to you, but what good does this do you if I rail against kittens and make it my life's mission to prevent public dollars from being used in benefit of kittens?

Dec 8, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I said it was disingenuous to claim on one hand that you are "only" trying to have a discussion based on "practical implications" [because you are clear that most folks on this board are not interested in your religious convictions] while simultaneously finding spots in various posts to slip in your religious beliefs. Big difference.

I'm not "only" trying to have such a discussion (why "only" appears in quotes is beyond me, since I've never used the word here), and I'd appreciate it if i) you took the time to examine the line of questioning that led up to Reply #156, and ii) you and others didn't throw away replies 1 thru 155 because I gave DJ an honest response in #156.

[mmhmm]

Dec 8, 2017 15:28:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 8, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I never said your religious arguments are disingenuous. I believe you when you say that your religious beliefs are of great importance to you, and (believe it or not) I respect that.

Thank you for clarifying.

You say you respect that my religious beliefs are of great importance to me. I believe you, but of what significance is this to me? You don't agree with my beliefs, and you oppose laws consistent with them.

I respect that your beliefs about kittens are of great importance to you, but what good does this do you if I rail against kittens and make it my life's mission to prevent public dollars from being used in benefit of kittens?

Dec 8, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I said it was disingenuous to claim on one hand that you are "only" trying to have a discussion based on "practical implications" [because you are clear that most folks on this board are not interested in your religious convictions] while simultaneously finding spots in various posts to slip in your religious beliefs. Big difference.

I'm not "only" trying to have such a discussion (why "only" appears in quotes is beyond me, since I've never used the word here), and I'd appreciate it if i) you took the time to examine the line of questioning that led up to Reply #156, and ii) you and others didn't throw away replies 1 thru 155 because I gave DJ an honest response in #156.

You do! You rail about poor, innocent snow leopard kittens ALL. THE. TIME! You advocate for their demise! KITTENS RULE and that includes snow leopard kittens! KITTEN POWER!

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 8, 2017 16:36:07 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

You do! You rail about poor, innocent snow leopard kittens ALL. THE. TIME! You advocate for their demise! KITTENS RULE and that includes snow leopard kittens! KITTEN POWER!

I respect that you believe snow leopards aren't murderous death machines that need to be scoured from the face of our fair planet, but, respectfully, YOU'RE WRONG! YOUR TRAITOROUS SYMPATHY FOR THE ENEMY WILL BE THE DEATH OF ALL MANKIND!

Up with Humanity! Not uncianity!

[NoNamePerson]

Aren't snow leopards God's creatures? Did I miss something in the bible saying kill all snow leopards? Just curious

[kittensaver]

Dec 8, 2017 15:28:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 8, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

I respect that your beliefs about kittens are of great importance to you, but what good does this do you if I rail against kittens and make it my life's mission to prevent public dollars from being used in benefit of kittens?

Dec 8, 2017 13:42:38 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

It does me no good at all BUT FURTHERMORE - it also doesn't matter to me one way or the other if you don't respect my beliefs about kittens. My personal beliefs don't need to be translated into public policy and practice. I do not adhere to a belief system that says "the kitten way is the only way and everybody better get on board and bend down to kittens."

I do not believe public dollars should be used for the benefit of only kittens. I believe that public dollars should be used for the good of ALL creatures - big, small, brave, timid, different, difficult, not-like-kittens-at-all, outright-contrary-to-everything-kittens-stand-for - ALL OF THEM. Every species has a right to exist and be acknowledged just they way they are and just for who they inherently are - and I openly assert that my definition of what is "for the good of all" is not any more or less important than anyone else's belief about what is "good for all."   

[mmhmm]

Dec 8, 2017 18:46:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 8, 2017 16:36:07 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

You do! You rail about poor, innocent snow leopard kittens ALL. THE. TIME! You advocate for their demise! KITTENS RULE and that includes snow leopard kittens! KITTEN POWER!

I respect that you believe snow leopards aren't murderous death machines that need to be scoured from the face of our fair planet, but, respectfully, YOU'RE WRONG! YOUR TRAITOROUS SYMPATHY FOR THE ENEMY WILL BE THE DEATH OF ALL MANKIND!

Up with Humanity! Not uncianity!

See deez teefs? Jus' as soon as I grows up you is in fer a lesson, hooman! Bes' you learns some respeck!

Firs', I gotta take a nap.

[Virgil Showlion]

KILLITKILLITKILLITKILLITKILLITKILLIT!!!