Reyginus: You also forget to add, they feel no pleasure either.

Irrelevant. The aim is to remove pain.

Reyginus:
The question you should now ask yourself is how can a person who feels neither pain nor pleasure, a person whose these terms are incapable of describing, be releived of either of the two that he is not capable of experiencing?

Nonsense. A dead person feels no pain. Aim is to remove pain. Your adding pleasure is a strawman.

Reyginus:
Like saying that by demolishing an ugly house you have made the house a good looking house, even when you know that the house one demolished is no longer a house in the first place.

Nonsense again

Reyginus:
You also fail to add, the majority, once we are in life it brings cherish more than being out of it.
If thirty zombies are after you, which I know only happens in movies, the rational thing to do is to run. You don't and proclaim yourself dead already.

Shut up. The zombies are already feeding on your legs in the question. Pay attention

Reyginus:
None of the above. Since we are talking about zombies here.
Do you also know that you can mimick their steps and go unharmed?

The zombies are already feeding on you....guy, stop talking bs

Reyginus:
Not by my hands if need be. I am a spartan. I will figh to my last blood drops.
And you don't think that anything contrary to the medical profession, the preservation of life, cannot be handled by a good medical practitioner.

Crap

Reyginus:
Can a good docter kill and still retain the hippocratic oath, can a good businessman steal and still retain his title, or will a good politician fail to deliver to the masses?

The hippocratic oath doesnt negate euthanasia...or can you try to show how?
You just add nonsense strawmen everytime.....

@Reyginus, you don't want to explicitly say it but I have a feeling that your whole argument is hinged on the fact that maybe a miracle could happen if only we could just hold on for longer.

like LB said, the options are Painful long drawn death and quick painless death...no option of 'running away from zombies' or 'mimicking their steps to stay alive'.

Reyginus: If they cannot afford it, he should be allowed to die.

this is what you answered. what do you think is being done when a brain dead man is 'allowed' to die?

Logicboy03:

Irrelevant. The aim is to remove pain.

How do you remove the pain.when the vessel for which the pain is being removed has already being made non-existent?

Logicboy03:

Nonsense. A dead person feels no pain. Aim is to remove pain. Your adding pleasure is a strawman.

I don't think it is. If it is safe to conclude that he feels no pain, even when dead, then I see nothing wrong in also assuming that he feels better also.

Logicboy03:


Shut up. The zombies are already feeding on your legs in the question. Pay attention

Lol@shut up. You command like one with authority.

Lol. They all cannot be feeding on your leg at the same time. We are left to accept that they feed on the other parts too, most especially the neck.

If we can create a scene like this, then the question of using a gun or either allowing them to devour you is irrelevant. Because you are already being confused and the question prescribed either of two actions that is on the verge of happening.

Logicboy03:


The zombies are already feeding on you....guy, stop talking bs

Lol. Then why present an option since the neck is out in a maximum of 2 seconds?

Logicboy03:


The hippocratic oath doesnt negate euthanasia...or can you try to show how?

By asserting that the practitioners must spare life always

Logicboy03:

You just add nonsense strawmen everytime.....

What's the strawman again?

Mr Troll: @Reyginus, you don't want to explicitly say it but I have a feeling that your whole argument is hinged on the fact that maybe a miracle could happen if only we could just hold on for longer.

It is not really hinged on that. It is but a possibility whose efficacy we must not neglect. It is possible, my friend.

But my argument is hinged on why a person by committing evil, and sending a person into non-existence, will claim to have alleviated his pains even though he is not alive to experience it.

Mr Troll:
like LB said, the options are Painful long drawn death and quick painless death...no option of 'running away from zombies' or 'mimicking their steps to stay alive'.

Read my response to logicboy.

Mr Troll:
this is what you answered. what do you think is being done when a brain dead man is 'allowed' to die?

Just as real as it sounds, he is allowed to die. The words are simple, I need not explain anything.

Reyginus: It is not really hinged on that. It is but a possibility whose efficacy we must not neglect. It is possible, my friend.

lol. have you ever been in a real situation where euthanasia is being considered?

But my argument is hinged on why a person by committing evil, and sending a person into non-existence, will claim to have alleviated his pains even though he is not alive to experience it.

Read my response to logicboy.

you are introducing a false dichotomy. it is not a case of pain or pleasure. there is pain, no pain, and then pleasure. a dead man experiences nothing, that is, no pain. that is the aim, no pain. definitely better than pain to me

Just as real as it sounds, he is allowed to die. The words are simple, I need not explain anything.

i'm afraid you do not fully grasp the question. a brain dead man IS on life support, which takes a lot of money to maintain. 'allowing' him to die means turning off his life support...

Reyginus: Very good. Patience please. I informed you of this in post 1and 2.

Next question.
Do you agree that Evolution is a morally good phenomenon or you agree that Evolution is morally a bad phenomenon?

You see lotta persons have already contributed to my stance here.

I don't know where this questions will take us to if what I plan to discussed has already been treated. .


Let's just get on with the topic...while you propose whatever I bring on board... have not been constant this days..
Don't make me lose out here biko..

Evolution is a morally good phenomenon..

Hope your next q won't be; do you believe humans evolved from apes tho?

^^^
that was a trick question he asked.

Evolution, like nature, is neither good nor bad. it just is. it is our perception that tries to give it a moral character. why don't you ask the 99% of extinct species whether evolution is morally good or bad?

Reyginus has specialized in false dichotomy in this thread. lol

Mr Troll: lol. have you ever been in a real situation where euthanasia is being considered?

No. What about you?

Mr Troll:

you are introducing a false dichotomy. it is not a case of pain or pleasure. there is pain, no pain, and then pleasure. a dead man experiences nothing, that is, no pain. that is the aim, no pain. definitely better than pain to me

If a dead person experiences no pain, add no pleasure too, which I have been emphasizing on from the beginning, how then were you able to come with the statement that Euthanasia is performed to alleviate the pain?

Or can you claim to alleviate the pain in a thing that doesn't exist?

Mr Troll:
i'm afraid you do not fully grasp the question. a brain dead man IS on life support, which takes a lot of money to maintain. 'allowing' him to die means turning off his life support...

Okay. I understood wrongly.

Even to that extent, we cannot call a disconnection caused by the lack of money to sustain him, Euthanasia. This is because it was not performed out of a desire to terminate pain but out of insufficient funds. I don't know if you get the point.

There are so many poor people in our society today suffering from ailments far above their income. People who know they are sick but cannot afford to pay for treatment. They just live with it, but instead of falling for Euthanasia they allow themselves to die.

quivah:
You see lotta persons have already contributed to my stance here.

In this same country, a lot of people will call you a fool for not stealing some misplaced millions of Naira. That's a wrong way to start with.

quivah:

I don't know where this questions will take us to if what I plan to discussed has already been treated. .

Just be patient, we will get that place soon. I thought you accepted the style from post one.

quivah:
Let's just get on with the topic...while you propose whatever I bring on board... have not been constant this days..
Don't make me lose out here biko..

It makes no sense if we use a wrong approach and end up like every other thread.

quivah:

Evolution is a morally good phenomenon..

Hope your next q won't be; do you believe humans evolved from apes tho?

Good answer. As the morally good phenomenon that Evolution is, do you think it is right to interfere with a morally good phenomenon or you will agree that it is bad to interfere with a morally good phenomenon?

Mr Troll: ^^^
that was a trick question he asked.

Evolution, like nature, is neither good nor bad. it just is. it is our perception that tries to give it a moral character. why don't you ask the 99% of extinct species whether evolution is morally good or bad?

Reyginus has specialized in false dichotomy in this thread. lol

Lol. Calm down, bro. We are not doing dialectics. She alone opted for it.

Reyginus: No. What about you?

you'd be surprised

If a dead person experiences no pain, add no pleasure too, which I have been emphasizing on from the beginning, how then were you able to come with the statement that Euthanasia is performed to alleviate the pain?

Or can you claim to alleviate the pain in a thing that doesn't exist?

do you agree that a dead person feels no pain? lets start from there...

Even to that extent, we cannot call a disconnection caused by the lack of money to sustain him, Euthanasia. This is because it was not performed out of a desire to terminate pain but out of insufficient funds. I don't know if you get the point.

There are so many poor people in our society today suffering from ailments far above their income. People who know they are sick but cannot afford to pay for treatment. They just live with it, but instead of falling for Euthanasia they allow themselves to die.

@bold, euthanasia is performed for several reasons, not just to alleviate physical pain.

@red, euthanasia is not forced on anybody. you can choose to suffer through the pain till you die, your call. the issue on ground is, what if someone should decide to go for it? why is it wrong?

Reyginus: Lol. Calm down, bro. We are not doing dialectics. She alone opted for it.

so you wan win argument by trickery abi?

Mr Troll: so you wan win argument by trickery abi?

lol, anonys style

Mr Troll: you'd be surprised

Is this a yes?

Mr Troll:
do you agree that a dead person feels no pain? lets start from there...

The question cannot happen. It is irrelevant in this case. Feelings are only a function of living things, and not non-living things.

So for your question to be logical enough to evoke an answer it has to be logical enough to admit into its fold things capable of feeling pain.

Mr Troll:
@bold, euthanasia is performed for several reasons, not just to alleviate physical pain.

Of course I know that. But in this thread, we have subconsciously assumed 'pain' as the reason behind every other reason. Like a form of synecdoche where a part of the whole is tasked to represent all.

Mr Troll:
@red, euthanasia is not forced on anybody. you can choose to suffer through the pain till you die, your call. the issue on ground is, what if someone should decide to go for it? why is it wrong?

Lol. C'mon! Bro, don't act as if I have deviated so early from the track.

I was only trying to prove a point with that analogy, which is, that even though to a brain dead allowing to die is synonymius to Euthanasia, it is no longer Euthanasia when it is money oriented.

Mr Troll: so you wan win argument by trickery abi?

Lol. For me it is not about winning.

Reyginus: In this same country, a lot of people will call you a fool for not stealing some misplaced millions of Naira. That's a wrong way to start with.
Just be patient, we will get that place soon. I thought you accepted the style from post one.
It makes no sense if we use a wrong approach and end up like every other thread.
Good answer. As the morally good phenomenon that Evolution is, do you think it is right to interfere with a morally good phenomenon or you will agree that it is bad to interfere with a morally good phenomenon?

Interfering with morally good phenomenom for a morally good will is absolurkey right...

This should ans ya q.

an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia...

That's the name of the drug used..

quivah:
Interfering with morally good phenomenom for a morally good will is absolutely right...

This should ans ya q.

You are trying to compound the problem but I will help the cause.

Will a morally good thing/person go against a morally good thing/person or a morally good thing/person will go only against a morally evil thing/person?

quivah: an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia...

That's the name of the drug used..

But I never asked for this or is it going to help the argument in any way?

Reyginus: You are trying to compound the problem but I will help the cause.

When a morally good thing/person go against a morally good thing/person or a morally good thing/person will go only against a morally evil thing/person?

Chai! :/
Is death evil??
Is pain reliefment evil??

Here, in the first instance... under the sense of the discussion... you refer to mean death and pain is the morally good thing right? If yeah! Then my stance on the topic is cleared!
Going against the morally good nature for a good will while putting other things into consideration isnt evuls ..
You are only altering nature for a good cause so far nature itself isn't affected or persons involved..

The morally good phenomenon of nature isn't affected...is it?

Also in the sense of the topic,euthanasia isn't applied when there's hope... sooner or later the patient will die... so here, I don't think there is any alteration of the morally good nature..

Reyginus: But I never asked for this or is it going to help the argument in any way?

I thought someone ,yeah you!! Asked Mr troll the question... dint you?

quivah:
Chai! :/
Is death evil??
Is pain reliefment evil??

Here, in the first instance... under the sense of the discussion... you refer to mean death and pain is the morally good thing right? If yeah! Then my stance on the topic is cleared!
Going against the morally good nature for a good will while putting other things into consideration isnt evuls ..
You are only altering nature for a good cause so far nature itself isn't affected or persons involved..

The morally good phenomenon of nature isn't affected...is it?

Also in the sense of the topic,euthanasia isn't applied when there's hope... sooner or later the patient will die... so here, I don't think there is any alteration of the morally good nature..

This doesn't answer my question as agreed. Don't bash the truth with impatience. I thought we had a deal

The question still is:
'Will a morally good thing/person go against a morally good thing/person or a morally good thing/person will go only against a morally evil thing/person?'

quivah:
I thought someone ,yeah you!! Asked Mr troll the question... dint you?

No, I didn't.

quivah:
I thought someone ,yeah you!! Asked Mr troll the question... dint you?

I was the one

are you in the medical field?

Reyginus: This doesn't answer my question as agreed. Don't bash the truth with impatience. I thought we had a deal

The question still is:
'When a morally good thing/person go against a morally good thing/person or a morally good thing/person will go only against a morally evil thing/person?'

They could go against both...

But on the weight,its the latter...

Hope we aint deviating from the topic tho..

And I hope your 'when' is actually 'will'..

rationalmind:

I was the one

are you in the medical field?

Oh ... the first letter confused me..


Yeah...and nah

I will follow up later please...


Gotta do somethings..

quivah:
They could go against both...

Will a good man go against another good man, even when goodness cannot go against itself, or will he go against a bad man, who is against a good man?

quivah:
But on the weight,its the latter...

Hope we aint deviating from the topic tho..

And I hope your 'when' is actually 'will'..

Yeah it is actually 'will'. With me, you can never deviate from the topic.

Your chose the later, which is that a good man will go against a morally evil person 'more'. Let's rectify the 'more' in the first question above before you take a step backward to reflect on your previous answer below.

quivah:
Interfering with morally good phenomenom for a morally good will is absolurkey right...

This should ans ya q.

Regyinus barks at the wrong tree. Euthanasia suggests terminal diseases, its moot arguing about emotional imbalance etc. As all sufferers of debilitating terminal diseases, there is hopelessness, and futility at clinging to life. They reach advanced stages of the diseases, that they become "vegetables"

Now, for these people, as I have said earlier, dignity and self value becomes a concern. Doctors in their duty to care for their patients in spite of the hopelessness, administer dignifying means to die.

Reyginus: It is not really hinged on that. It is but a possibility whose efficacy we must not neglect. It is possible, my friend.

But my argument is hinged on why a person by committing evil, and sending a person into non-existence, will claim to have alleviated his pains even though he is not alive to experience it.

Read my response to logicboy.
Just as real as it sounds, he is allowed to die. The words are simple, I need not explain anything.

The act of killing is not immoral, rather the intent /bad faith is what has the moral weight. Also, if you pay a bit attention, self defence is basically murder in good will! So also euthanasia, it is administered in good faith.

For example people in the most advanced stages of Parkinson disease, find themselves useless to themselves and their society, and worse they feel the worthlessness and the lack of power/strength. They lose their self worth.

Reyginus: The question cannot happen. It is irrelevant in this case. Feelings are only a function of living things, and not non-living things.

So for your question to be logical enough to evoke an answer it has to be logical enough to admit into its fold things capable of feeling pain.

the question is logical enough. its simple really, do dead people feel anything? I think the answer is no. this means that euthanasia aims to remove the pain associated with the terminal illness. like LB said, its the choice between dying painfully and dying painlessly.

Of course I know that. But in this thread, we have subconsciously assumed 'pain' as the reason behind every other reason. Like a form of synecdoche where a part of the whole is tasked to represent all.
Lol. C'mon! Bro, don't act as if I have deviated so early from the track.

I was only trying to prove a point with that analogy, which is, that even though to a brain dead allowing to die is synonymius to Euthanasia, it is no longer Euthanasia when it is money oriented.

we didn't subconsciously assume anything. we just focused on the pain aspect.

@bold, what is that? lol. are you trying to redefine euthanasia now?

Double posts!