tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 5, 2015 20:43:33 GMT -5
And to your point, people have been killing themselves for centuries, perhaps millennia. They will continue. DWD laws apply to only a very small percentage of the population, but those people deserve the option to end their lives in a better manner rather than having society force them otherwise.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 22:47:36 GMT -5
I don't know if you are aware of the requirements in Washington, but here is a FAQ page about the act. It does detail who, how, and under what circumstances someone may make the request. It is not a quick or simple matter, so the chance of someone just wanting to die because they "feel bad" is pretty nonexistent. Hope it helps.
ETA: I would hope, Virgil, that reading the requirements of the Act will ease your mind about "the enormity of its downside." Somebody posted the same link in the DWD thread. I read it there. You may recall that there was already pressure to expand the range of conditions under which people could legally commit suicide, and the OP of that thread was one such case. Again, this isn't a debate about the law. As I understand it, most states don't even have DWD laws. This is a debate about the ideology behind it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 5, 2015 22:56:56 GMT -5
If you would like to find that thread, I will review the OP and that particular point of contention. (And yes, it was probably me that posted the link.) But truthfully, if you already knew the details of the requirements in the Act, and STILL managed to post the irrelevant and nonsensical crap in #55 and #58, I really have to wonder about you.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 23:08:37 GMT -5
And to your point, people have been killing themselves for centuries, perhaps millennia. They will continue. DWD laws apply to only a very small percentage of the population, but those people deserve the option to end their lives in a better manner rather than having society force them otherwise. What I'm not seeing in your argument is why it suddenly stops cleanly at "terminal illness within a six-month timeframe". There's nothing logical about that particular cutoff, and because there's nothing logical about it, I can all but guarantee you it will in short order expand to circumstances you wouldn't approve of. One of the unintended consequences of the law is that it shifts priorities. The sanctity of life is now bumped into the #2 spot behind "personal choice", not unlike another moral issue we've visited on the board. As soon as that inversion of priorities happens, there's no firm barrier to how paramount personal choice can become. Simply put, if choice is paramount, it doesn't make sense that an individual six months away from death is permitted to commit suicide but an individual seven months away from death is not. If choice is paramount, it doesn't make sense that an individual facing a terminal illness is permitted to commit suicide, but an individual facing a debilitating illness that isn't terminal isn't. In your own minds the cutoff may seem perfectly logical, but the fact that it's baseless tells me that it's going to get pushed and pushed, quite possibly until it's as commonplace as that which shall not be named. Choice trumps the sanctity of life, and your six month cutoff is a Maginot Line. It's going to topple very quickly. That's why this isn't a debate about the law. It's a warning about the inversion of priorities that accompanies it. I worry that you're so enamoured of the immediate utility of the law that these broader ramifications aren't registering with you. That's what I mean by "the enormity of the consequences". Not the consequences of the law itself, but the consequences of the ideology that engendered it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 23:10:08 GMT -5
If you would like to find that thread, I will review the OP and that particular point of contention. (And yes, it was probably me that posted the link.) But truthfully, if you already knew the details of the requirements in the Act, and STILL managed to post the irrelevant and nonsensical crap in #55 and #58, I really have to wonder about you. You're the one not getting my argument, sir. It's going over your head. That's your problem, not mine.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 5, 2015 23:27:32 GMT -5
Followers and practitioners of freedom and liberty should take a hands off approach to when some other free individual chooses to end their life, whether they are terminal, sick, or just want to go somewhere else. It's that simple.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 5, 2015 23:29:11 GMT -5
Believe me, sir, your argument is not going over my head. You are making an argument completely off-topic. You are arguing matters of suicide in general, and stretching them wildly out-of-shape to try and make them fit a DWD subject. They do not. And will not, despite your concerns. Suicide itself may not be a wonderful option, but that will never prevent people from doing it. A ruined businessman bent on killing himself need not jump through all the hoops of a DWD request. Far easier and faster to jump off a building. (Not to mention the tremendous Great Depression precedent for that particular act.) DWD is a medical answer to a medical problem.
There really is no basis for the idea of "permitted to commit suicide." It may still technically be illegal in places, but nobody bent on such a course is worried about permission, I assure you. And again, anyone physically capable who wants to that bad will just do it. DWD is not the quick option.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 23:48:25 GMT -5
Believe me, sir, your argument is not going over my head. You are making an argument completely off-topic. You are arguing matters of suicide in general, and stretching them wildly out-of-shape to try and make them fit a DWD subject. They do not. And will not, despite your concerns. Suicide itself may not be a wonderful option, but that will never prevent people from doing it. A ruined businessman bent on killing himself need not jump through all the hoops of a DWD request. Far easier and faster to jump off a building. (Not to mention the tremendous Great Depression precedent for that particular act.) DWD is a medical answer to a medical problem.
There really is no basis for the idea of "permitted to commit suicide." It may still technically be illegal in places, but nobody bent on such a course is worried about permission, I assure you. And again, anyone physically capable who wants to that bad will just do it. DWD is not the quick option. "Permitted" isn't the right word, I'll admit. My argument in a nutshell is that DWD is a symptom of the same ideology that aims to normalize and legitimize the practice of suicide. The very fact that your reply is DWD this and DWD that means that you're not getting my arguments. If they seem off-topic to you, accept what I've said more than a half dozen times now: this isn't about DWD.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 5, 2015 23:51:20 GMT -5
Followers and practitioners of freedom and liberty should take a hands off approach to when some other free individual chooses to end their life, whether they are terminal, sick, or just want to go somewhere else. It's that simple. You getting this, tallguy? This is the endgame. This is where the path leads. Don is making my point for me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 5, 2015 23:55:18 GMT -5
Again, though, this is about suicide itself. It has nothing really to do with DWD. Make that argument, fine. But it is a separate one. You are trying to conflate them, and it doesn't work.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 6, 2015 0:05:50 GMT -5
Again, though, this is about suicide itself. It has nothing really to do with DWD. Make that argument, fine. But it is a separate one. You are trying to conflate them, and it doesn't work. I've said that I don't oppose the law too many times to count. My grievance is with the notion of "death with dignity". Call it "small-D" death with dignity, as opposed to the law, which is (capital-D) Death with Dignity. The law is one of the early symptoms of the ideology. The ideology is what troubles me. Dondub just provided an excellent synopsis of it above. I realize it's a complex argument, but I'm really not trying to conflate the two. A good 30% of everything I've said has been explanations of where the two do and don't fit together. You should also to go back to the DWD thread for context.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 6, 2015 0:39:01 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with someone requesting of a medical doctor a prescription for killing themselves because their little toe is ugly, finding some doctor who will sign off on it, then finding a psychiatrist who will sign off on it, getting the medication, and killing themselves. If that toe is truly so ugly that they will go to all that trouble, that two professionals agree it is so ugly that the person has no reason to continue to exist, then who am I to oppose the decision. It is better than the person getting a gun and blowing their brains out during a binge drinking weekend.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 6, 2015 7:43:20 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with someone requesting of a medical doctor a prescription for killing themselves because their little toe is ugly, finding some doctor who will sign off on it, then finding a psychiatrist who will sign off on it, getting the medication, and killing themselves. If that toe is truly so ugly that they will go to all that trouble, that two professionals agree it is so ugly that the person has no reason to continue to exist, then who am I to oppose the decision. It is better than the person getting a gun and blowing their brains out during a binge drinking weekend. You agree with Don. It also stands to reason that you believe it would be difficult to find two professionals who would sign off on the suicide. At this cosmic moment in time, it probably would be. That could (and depending on circumstances, likely will) change very rapidly. All it takes is a handful of professionals who take the "choice is paramount" mantra to its logical conclusion, and a "people will just blow their brains out anyway" justification analogous to the justification for that which shall not be named. Suicide could very easily become a profitable industry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:10:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2015 15:12:52 GMT -5
That's why your state is backwards, and still in the 19th century. It takes people willing to challenge orthodoxy to move forward. Not something conservatives are known for. They LIVE for orthodoxy. That's too extreme. I'm merely a fiscal conservative. Please don't judge all by the extreme right. I don't judge all liberals by the extreme left.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,161
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 16, 2015 20:53:49 GMT -5
That's why your state is backwards, and still in the 19th century. It takes people willing to challenge orthodoxy to move forward. Not something conservatives are known for. They LIVE for orthodoxy. That's too extreme. I'm merely a fiscal conservative. Please don't judge all by the extreme right. I don't judge all liberals by the extreme left. I don't, really. That was a light-hearted and hyperbolic response to mmhmm's joking (I think) statements which preceded it. I have always described myself as a moderate, independent, social liberal, fiscal conservative. (And yes, that should technically read "socially liberal, fiscally conservative.") When I was younger I described it as independent with Republican leanings, but the Republicans left me long ago in their mad dash to nuttiness. I'm still not a Democrat, and am very happy that Washington does not make you choose a party. I definitely consider myself a liberal thinker, in that I almost always question things and make up my own mind rather than merely accept or even listen to authority. And many if not most of my beliefs are liberal in nature, such as the belief that individual rights and liberties should be paramount, that responsibility is tied inextricably to that, and that if anyone's rights or freedoms are violated than none are secure.
I hope that helps clarify a bit. I judge the extreme right by the extreme right, just like I judge the extreme left by the extreme left. Got absolutely no use for either of 'em. I think I have said here before that anyone intellectually capable of seeing both sides of an issue almost invariably ends up a moderate. They certainly don't end up on an extreme.
|
|
imanangel
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2014 12:18:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by imanangel on Jan 17, 2015 3:39:56 GMT -5
Anyone still think a mandatory class for carrying weapons is too much of an offense to the second amendment?
A purse is not a holster- and really a town of 10K in Idaho? How many thugs are hanging around the only store in town where she felt a need to carry in the first place.
I am starting to understand the whole negligent entrustment angle- aka selling guns to any idiot American with a pulse and an ID. And if not that- allowing anyone to carry in public without training- that's crazy- I don't care if anyone wants to carry all day on their own property away from the rest of us but if are bringing weapons in public in the ready to fire state then you should know what the hell you are doing. I had a friend that carried her concealed gun in her purse all the time. It scared the shit out of me. The woman didn't know how to pump gas or change a lightbulb, and I was supposed to assume she knew how to handle a gun safely? She would dig through her purse, pull out the gun with lipstick, candy, etc. I told her all the time that I wasn't going anywhere with her if she had the gun in the purse.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 17, 2015 8:47:24 GMT -5
Anyone still think a mandatory class for carrying weapons is too much of an offense to the second amendment?
A purse is not a holster- and really a town of 10K in Idaho? How many thugs are hanging around the only store in town where she felt a need to carry in the first place.
I am starting to understand the whole negligent entrustment angle- aka selling guns to any idiot American with a pulse and an ID. And if not that- allowing anyone to carry in public without training- that's crazy- I don't care if anyone wants to carry all day on their own property away from the rest of us but if are bringing weapons in public in the ready to fire state then you should know what the hell you are doing. I had a friend that carried her concealed gun in her purse all the time. It scared the shit out of me. The woman didn't know how to pump gas or change a lightbulb, and I was supposed to assume she knew how to handle a gun safely? She would dig through her purse, pull out the gun with lipstick, candy, etc. I told her all the time that I wasn't going anywhere with her if she had the gun in the purse. Last sentence. I told her all the time.......... Obviously she did not believe you, the first or second time.
|
|
imanangel
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2014 12:18:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by imanangel on Jan 17, 2015 11:53:30 GMT -5
I had a friend that carried her concealed gun in her purse all the time. It scared the shit out of me. The woman didn't know how to pump gas or change a lightbulb, and I was supposed to assume she knew how to handle a gun safely? She would dig through her purse, pull out the gun with lipstick, candy, etc. I told her all the time that I wasn't going anywhere with her if she had the gun in the purse. Last sentence. I told her all the time.......... Obviously she did not believe you, the first or second time.
Actually, she did believe me. She took her gun out of her purse before we went anywhere together. When we weren't together, it was in her purse. I didn't care as long as we weren't together.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 17, 2015 11:58:39 GMT -5
This thread is probably ok to post this. Illinois issued 91,651 concealed carry permits last year. 24,000 of them were for Cook County, alone. Mostly Chicago for those that are not familiar with Illinois. Illinois was the last state holdout for concealed carry permits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 23:10:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 18:56:57 GMT -5
This thread is probably ok to post this. Illinois issued 91,651 concealed carry permits last year. 24,000 of them were for Cook County, alone. Mostly Chicago for those that are not familiar with Illinois. Illinois was the last state holdout for concealed carry permits. Nothing wrong with that. Since they were the "last holdout" (as you say), the citizens have some catching up to do before equilibrium takes over and it "smooths out".
|
|